Adam Putnam

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Massachusetts had me with Iran and lost me with Iraq. Everything that he said regarding the seriousness of the threat from Iran, a nuclear-capable Iran, is unacceptable to our interests. Everything he said is absolutely correct. And I can save him the vote on the previous question by asking him to turn to page 22 of the public version of the intelligence authorization bill, where it says, under the subheading Reporting Regarding Iran and North Korea, ``The committee has conducted regular and ongoing oversight of these efforts and expects the DNI to ensure that the Intelligence Community continues to provide timely, detailed, and frequent reporting on the current intentions and capabilities on Iran and North Korea's nuclear, chemical, biological, radiological, and missile programs, as well as the Intelligence Community's capabilities to understand and evaluate these programs. In particular, the committee is interested in receiving, on an ongoing basis current assessments of Iran and North Korea's nuclear, chemical, biological weapons, and missile programs; information on new intelligence developed, including intelligence collected from both open and clandestine sources; and full discussion of any gaps in knowledge, dissents, caveats, and other information that would tend to reduce confidence in the overall assessment. The committee believes these reports will provide timely information to help better inform Congress as it is asked to make decisions regarding U.S. policy towards Iran and North Korea.'' The reporting requirement is in the bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. I urge the gentleman, I urge the Congress to support the rule, support the underlying bill, and support the hardworking men and women.

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman, by his answer, has answered the question that clearly we have an Intelligence Committee specifically for the purpose of being our eyes and ears, because we do not empower every single Senator and every single House Member with every single detail of every activity going on in the intelligence community, and there are very strong reasons for that. So, clearly, that would not be the proper course of action. Under longstanding committee tradition, the chair and the ranking member of both Houses were brought into a different level of awareness on certain activities that were going on. Under Democratic and Republican control, that was the case. As a result of the terrorist surveillance program, the Senate created an entire new subcommittee to deal with the issue, and the House expanded access to that information to 11 Members, an unprecedented number of Members going beyond the historical, under the Democratic model, four Members who had been given access to those types of programs and activities.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, relaiming my time, the gentleman had suggested that the other 420 Members of the House had not had access to the information, and that is precisely how it is set up, that they would not have access to that information. That is why we have talented Members like yourself on the committee, and that is why we have expanded access to information about that program to more members of the committee than ever before. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, setting aside the fact that the amendment the gentlewoman refers to is not germane to this bill, I point out to the gentlewoman that the amendment that she refers to creates a commission that, A, already exists; and, B, the chair and vice chair have already been confirmed by the Senate, and the members have been appointed. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to another member of the House Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

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. 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. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, it has been a good debate. We have 4 more hours to go. We need to pass this rule. The gentleman has grabbed the veterans issue by the horns, and appropriately so. We will stand by our veterans funding. It is a 4 percent increase in an era when the rest of the budget is assumed to be reduced by a tenth of a point. This is a two-step process, and the gentleman knows it. The budget lays out the fences, the appropriations process decides what is spent within those fences. We have doubled spending per veteran, not spending on veterans, spending per veteran in the last 10 years. We have doubled spending on veterans medical care. These are issues that are hugely important. I am proud of the way this debate has been conducted, because this budget lays out the competing visions for America, one that inspires economic growth through sensible tax policies, and one that wants to spend, spend, and spend some more based on the myth of the tax gap collections that would miraculously appear tomorrow under the Democrats' proposal. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, I move the previous question on the resolution and urge the adoption of this rule.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, the myth is this: in your plan, you assume that the $200 billion tax gap will magically appear tomorrow. If we knew where the $200 billion was, we would find it now. You assume that the $200 billion in uncollected taxes are available to be collected and then be spent under your budget plan the day your proposal passes. It wouldn't be uncollected if we knew where it was. It wouldn't be uncollected if we could go get it. Somebody has to go hassle these people to pay their taxes. That is the myth. Does it need to be done? Absolutely. Should we close it? Absolutely. But that is a crap shoot. You will not have 100 percent collections of all income taxes due by the day that your bill passes, if it were to pass tomorrow. That is the myth. You point out that our deficit is different than the CBO baseline. You are correct. The CBO baseline assumes, and your budget assumes, that you will allow the tax reforms that passed in 2001 and 2003 to expire. So capital gains taxes go up; dividend taxes go up; taxes on middle-income brackets go up; the 10 percent bracket disappears; AMT relief, no action. You allow those things to expire. The CBO assumes those things will expire. We assume they will stay in place because we believe that those are the drivers of the economic engine that is giving this country 4.8 percent unemployment, which is lower than the average of the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. It is what allows this government to collect 15 percent more revenues, more money from the taxpayers this year than last year, even though the tax rate is lower. That is the difference. That is the myth. That is the problem with the competing budgets as ours stacks up against yours. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend from Massachusetts in the conversation about insatiable appetites that nearly every amendment offered by the Democratic minority on the Budget Committee spent more money. There was no amendment offered by the Democratic minority that changed the Tax Code in any way. In previous years they had sought to raise taxes. They have learned that lesson, that it does not fly with small business men and women across the America, that it is not particularly popular, and it is terrible economic policy to raise taxes. So they dropped that. But nearly every amendment offered in the committee markup was to spend more money and to pay for it using the mythical potential of what is called the ``tax gap,'' which is the difference between taxes owed and taxes collected. That is money that may or may not appear based on an aggressive IRS. That was their pay- for to feed their insatiable appetite for more spending. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the gentleman's stack of letters that we are entering into the Record, he could find the thank you notes from the veterans who thank us for finally, after decades of inactivity under the previous leadership, acting on concurrent receipts giving veterans what they need; doubling funding for veterans in 10 years; a 4 percent increase next year over this. We budget year to year, and the gentleman knows it. Every year this majority has come through for our veterans. Every year we have been there, and we will continue to be there for America's veterans. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my good friend from the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 766 is a rule that provides for general debate of House Concurrent Resolution 376, the bill establishing the congressional budget for the Federal Government for fiscal year 2007, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 through 2011. As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for consideration. This rule provides for 4 hours of general debate, with 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee, and 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies, again equally divided and controlled by Representative Saxton of New Jersey and Representative Maloney of New York or their designees. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution, and it provides that after general debate the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion and no further consideration of the bill shall be in order except by subsequent order of the House. This rule allows the House to begin consideration of the congressional budget. The budget is an important tool of the Congress, allowing us to establish our priorities for the coming year. I am proud that this budget responds to the Nation's complex challenges with the straightforward principles of strength, spending control, and a continued commitment to reform. The budget resolution continues policies that have helped to reestablish a strong United States economy. We have included savings for working Americans to the tune of $228 billion. We extend the 2001 and 2003 tax reforms, preventing what would otherwise be an automatic tax increase from their scheduled expiration. The budget also assumes the extension of other expiring tax provisions, including the alternative minimum tax relief, a House-passed pension bill, and other important economic growth measures. While working to give Americans back some of their hard-earned dollars and letting them keep more of their hard-earned dollars, we are also working to 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. House Concurrent Resolution 376 has an overall discretionary spending level that is equal to the President's budget request of $873 billion. It allows for the President's requested 7 percent increase in defense and a 3.8 percent increase for homeland security. As always, 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 0.1 percent increase over last year's level, a tenth of a percent. As an additional savings method, the budget caps advance appropriations, spending that is for the year after the budget year. In the area of mandatory spending, entitlement spending, we provide a total of $1.5 trillion. In an effort to control the automatic effusion of dollars, the budget resolution calls for mandatory spending reforms from several committees. These savings, these mandatory spending savings, total $6.75 billion over 5 years. This is an important distinction. This is one of the first times in the history of modern budgeting that there has been back-to-back reconciliation instructions in the House budget. Today, over half of Federal spending is essentially on autopilot. Fifty-five percent of Federal expenditures today are going into what is known in budget parlance as mandatory accounts. So all of the discretion that lies within this body and lies within the Senate is not even half of the Federal budget. And within 10 years, if these reconciliation instructions are not implemented, that are embedded in this budget for the second year in a row, then within 10 years it will consume two- thirds of the Federal budget, two-thirds of the Federal budget being on autopilot if we don't implement the reforms that this budget calls for. Last year was the first year since 1997 that we had made the effort through passage of the Budget Act to get our arms around mandatory spending through reconciliation instructions. This year we do that again. This is an important reform effort. Again, it is one of the few times in modern history where there has been back-to-back reconciliation instructions that allows us to reduce the size of the Federal deficit. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this year the Budget Committee included an emergency reserve fund to help Congress plan for unforeseen costs that may arise in the future. We have set aside $50 billion toward an expected wartime supplemental, as well as $4.3 billion for unanticipated emergencies, such as natural disasters, and $2.3 billion for potential avian flu costs. As a Congressman from the great State of Florida, I can tell you with a great deal of certainty that the last several years have been very active in the Atlantic hurricane season. We know, without being able to see into the future, we know that somewhere in the next year there is likely to be a hurricane that will make landfall in the United States. Somewhere in the United States this year there will almost certainly be devastating wildfires. Somewhere in the United States in the coming fiscal year there will almost certainly be an earthquake or devastating tornadoes. Hopefully, we will not have a natural disaster that reaches the catastrophic level that Hurricane Katrina reached. But nevertheless, just like responsible businesses and responsible homeowners who set aside money in their savings accounts for when the hot water heater breaks or when the car needs new tires or when the transmission goes out, the Federal Government, a little bit slowly, but nevertheless has come around to the notion that we should plan for emergencies, particularly those types of very expensive natural disasters that do frequently strike our shores. With increased spending control, tax relief, and these important budget reforms, this budget makes a sizable dent in our deficits. Under these policies, the deficit will fall by more than half, from $521 billion, which is projected in fiscal year 2004, to $191 billion in fiscal year 2009, which is below the President's planned budget achievements. I am proud of the work of the Budget Committee this year. I thank Chairman Nussle for pushing forward with fiscal discipline and bringing us this excellent budget for our consideration, and 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 think the gentlewoman raises an important point about the need for us to continue to invest in research and development, in health care initiatives that allow us to remain a Nation on the cutting edge of technology both in biosciences, basic research, and the whole gamut of diseases and disorders that afflict the human condition. This majority takes a back seat to no one on investments in health. The National Institutes of Health are preeminent research institutions run by this Federal Government that are making great strides against cancer, against juvenile diabetes, against HIV/AIDS, against a whole host of orphan diseases and disorders that only afflict a small number of Americans, but nevertheless in a huge, huge way to that individual family. Since 1998, NIH funding, because of the investments that this majority has made, has more than doubled. More than doubled since 1998. Funding in 1998 was at $13.5 billion. Today this Nation invests nearly $28.5 billion in the National Institutes of Health. We take a back seat to no one in recognizing that it is fundamentally important that America remain on the cutting edge of innovation, that it is fundamentally important that we continue to produce graduates in the health sciences, in engineering, in mathematics to keep us on that cutting edge. We take a back seat to no one in recognizing that it is important to have in place economic policies, tax policies that encourage people to make those investments in this country instead of in other countries; that we have in place incentives to people to add new lines of scientists at their workbenches and their laboratories in Silicon Valley, California, or at the CDC in Atlanta. We recognize it is important to have a growing economy that allows us the luxury of being able to invest in research that may not bear fruit for decades to come. And we take a back seat to no one in the commitment we have made for the last dozen years in funding the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues join me in complimenting your selection of neckwear this morning. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), one of our newer members of the Budget Committee and a CPA.

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, it is always fun to have these debates. We ought to at least start out with our facts straight, though. For the last 10 years, spending per veteran under Republican leadership has doubled. In the last 10 years, spending budget authority for veterans medical care nearly doubled going from $16.2 billion to $31 billion. Facts are stubborn things, my friend. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 766 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the gentleman's concerns about funding for veterans, and I would remind him again that since 1995 veterans medical care spending has increased from $16 billion to more than $31 billion, an increase of 92 percent. The funding increase for next year, over this one, year-to-year increase is nearly 4 percent, a substantial jump, especially relative to other discretionary programs who will see a tenth of a point cut. They are getting a 4 percent increase. We recognize the sacrifices that veterans make. We recognize our lifelong commitment to them for the sacrifices that they have made and continue to make. This budget builds on that strong foundation. It accommodates general veterans funding at $75 billion, and it is $800 million above even what the President requested. This Congress is meeting the needs of America's veterans. In addition to increasing over the President's request, it does not increase the fees that were called for in his request. Frequently on this floor we get sucked into these debates based on what the President's proposal is, and that is not the document that we are debating here this morning. This is the House budget. In fact, in the budget markup, we had an opportunity to vote on the President's budget, and we chose to go a different path with the document that this House is producing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman of two points. First, spending per veteran and spending for veterans' medical care both have nearly doubled in the last 10 years. I remind the gentleman of that. Second point, with regard to the procedure around here for changing the debt limit, it is known as the Gephardt rule. The process for adjusting the debt limit was put in place when your team was in charge. So the gentleman takes issue with a process that was invented by his team. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. I thank the gentleman for the time. Mr. Speaker, drugs are a scourge. It is a scourge that is not just an inner-city problem. It has spread like a cancer into our small towns, our suburban areas, farming communities, areas that used to view the war on drugs with a certain jaundiced eye as being somebody else's problem. In Florida, unfortunately, we have been on the cutting edge of this war, beginning with the cocaine cowboys of the eighties, the dope runners who would use our airstrips and grassy areas to bring things in from the Caribbean and from Central America, and we have seen how it has ripped apart our communities. We have seen how it has filled our schools with children with severe learning disabilities and developmental difficulties because of decisions that their parents made in using these terrible drugs, these highly addictive and dangerous chemicals. We have seen the costs that it has on society, and it is nothing short of a national tragedy. So I am pleased that there is such bipartisan concern for dealing with this scourge. I am heartened by the bipartisan number of amendments that are being offered to try and improve upon this work of really giving the ONDCP the authority and the teeth that they need to continue to go after this. This Congress is working together to curtail the dangerous proliferation of drugs, and particularly that of methamphetamines. Meth abuse is where we really see a tremendous amount of growth outside of the cities, outside of those traditional areas where we have associated drug use. My home district in central Florida is not what you would stereotypically think of as a high-drug trafficking area, a high-crime area. It is an area of suburban bedroom communities for larger cities and rolling citrus hills and cattle ranches. The largest city has less than 80,000 people in it. And yet it is, unfortunately, on the short list of major production areas for methamphetamine because of its rural nature, because they can have these labs in the middle of nowhere, where the stench from the creation of that terrible drug is not noticed. In fact, the DEA says that meth has become the most dangerous drug problem of small-town America. They note that young people ages 12 to 14 who live in small towns are 104 percent more likely to use meth than young people living in larger cities. What a frightening statistic for people who think that they are escaping big-city problems when they move to smaller towns. Meth abuse is most prevalent in these rural areas, as we said, because you can set these labs up anywhere without detection, the more rural the area is. My district has seen a huge spike in meth abuse, meth production, since the nineties, which has a direct correlation to rising crime rates, overcrowded prisons and an impact on local law enforcement and local schools. I appreciate the work of the Meth Caucus here in this Congress for continuing to bring attention to this epidemic of methamphetamine abuse. It is imperative that our Congress ensure that the Federal Government start treating this national problem with the same urgency and the same commitment that our State and local governments and grassroots advocacy groups have been treating it with for years. I urge my colleagues to support the rule. I appreciate the hard work of Mr. Souder and Mr. Sessions and all the folks who have put so much into this, and I urge Members to support the underlying bill as well.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the Deficit Reduction Act yet again to address some technical amendments that were made by the Senate. House Resolution 653 provides that the House agree with the Senate amendments to the House passed version of S. 1932. S. 1932 provides for reconciliation as described in the Congressional budget resolution of 2006. As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee and a conferee on this legislation, I am pleased to bring this legislation to the floor for what we hope will be its final, final consideration. For the first time since 1997, the Congressional budget resolution included deficit reduction instructions to authorizing committees to find and achieve mandatory program savings for a more accountable government. It does this by finding smarter ways to spend and by slowing the rate of the growth of government, especially on the mandatory side of the ledger. The Deficit Reduction Act seeks to curb the unsustainable growth rate of mandatory programs that are set to consume 62 percent of our total budget in the next decade if left unchecked. The agreement will stimulate reform of these entitlement programs, many of which are outdated, inefficient and excessively costly. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this legislation, and I am proud of the work that this House, through its authorizing committees, through the Budget Committee process, through, in short, regular order has achieved. I am proud of that. I am proud that this legislation begins a long-term effort at slowing the growth of entitlement spending. Our goal was to control government spending so that Americans can keep more of their own money instead of having the government seize more. The authorizing committees from both Chambers have worked very hard to find savings within their individual jurisdictions that total nearly $40 billion in efficiency. The agreement allows programs and agencies to weed out waste, fraud, abuse, duplication of effort, so that we can channel more Federal dollars to programs that succeed and to the people who are truly in need, to serve the intended populations more efficiently, more effectively, and in smarter ways. I look forward to passing this reform bill and reaffirming sound oversight and fiscal responsibility here in Washington. This legislation is a step towards smarter, more competent government. I urge Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This debate has devolved into a 10-minute extension of the overall concept of deficit reduction. The unfunded mandates claim does not ring true. There is more money going into these States. States have been double-dipping, and the action in this bill today will simply close that loophole and end that practice, particularly by the 10 States that have been operating on Federal dollars at a profit.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today has changed somewhat from its travels in the Senate. The rhetoric on the other side of the aisle has not. It is the same old tired class-warfare rhetoric, more befitting of a response to the State of the Union than anything at all related to a parliamentary inquiry regarding unfunded mandates. The specific point as it relates to an unfunded mandate claim by the other side regarding the child support changes in the Deficit Reduction Act is simply not correct. According to the GAO, in 2004 the Federal Government paid 88 percent of all child support program costs. Eighty- eight percent. Ten States made money on their program from the taxpayers from the other 40 States. Ten States retained more child support collections than it cost them to operate it. They actually generated substantial profit with the Federal Government picking up 100 percent of their costs, the Federal Government obviously not being a nebulous concept, the Federal government being the other 40 States subsidizing 10 States' child support programs to the tune of a profit. Over the next 5 years, the Federal Government will spend nearly $20 billion on child support program costs. That is after the changes that are made here in the Deficit Reduction Act, and still far more than the States are expected to spend. States continue to receive $500 million in Federal incentive funds every year, on top of $2 in Federal funds for every $1 of State funds spent for a 66 percent Federal matching rate. Not a bad deal. Set in this context, this claim of unfunded mandates is simply not correct and not meaningful. The child support savings in the Deficit Reduction Act result from ending the practice of States claiming Federal matching funds for spending Federal child support incentive funds, double dipping, if you will. This double dipping cannot be justified. Closing this loophole, which is what it amounts to, saves $1.6 billion over 5 years with no impact on services being provided to the clients. The change would not take effect until fiscal year 2008, giving States 2 years to adjust to the change. And States could replace every penny of expected Federal savings by increasing their own spending modestly with the Federal Government filling in the difference. States could unlock $2 Federal dollars for every $1 spent under the program's 66 percent match rate. So if States want to increase spending by $900 million, they would have to pony up $300 million of their own. Again, not a bad deal for the States. I think it is a return that most investors would accept readily. CBO's letter that the gentleman refers to shows it is impossible to achieve even modest savings in this open-ended entitlement program without raising an underfunded mandate objection. Unless your goal is to prevent any reduction in Federal spending, which I think it is fair to stipulate is their goal, this is not a meaningful objection. Even with this change, CBO expects child support collections will grow each and every year and the projections bear that out, rising from $24 billion today to $28 billion in 2010 and $34 billion in 2015, clearly only a Democratic definition of a cut. Other features of the Deficit Reduction Act would provide States significant Federal welfare funds, including $17 billion in annual TANF block grants through 2010 and $3 billion in mandatory child care through 2010, a $1 billion increase above current law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.