Adam Putnam

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I thank my chairman for allowing me to respond. The gentleman made the statement that this is not a border enforcement bill, and I would disagree and say that it is a border enforcement bill. It is not a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. I have one remaining speaker as well.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Recognizing that volume does not always make up for sound policy, I would just pose the question as to why the Democratic substitute leaves out many of the people that the gentleman purported to speak for. The Democratic substitute does not include the savers credit for low income families, those low income families who are contributing to IRAs and pension plans, scrimping and saving every day, every week, every month to put aside money to prepare for their own retirement, to prepare for their own retirement security so that they are not solely dependent on the government. Their substitute is silent on that point. Why are they silent on the point of assistance for small businesses, allowing them to increase section 179 expensing so that they can get that new piece of equipment, add the new line, which means more employees, more growth, more purchasing and a better economic ripple effect in the community? Why do you leave out small businesses along with your low income savers? Why do you leave out the part that impacts domestic manufacturers who finance sales of large equipment to foreign customers? We hear an awful lot of concern about outsourcing. Here you have American-based companies doing everything they can to trade in an increasingly complex globalized economy, and you leave them out of your substitute. Why do you leave out the parts that deal with capital gains and dividends? Why is it only about the wealthy and not about every one of those 91 million Americans who own stock, who are trying to invest in America, who understand that markets offer them an opportunity to grow and create opportunities that they may not have had otherwise? Why are all of those 91 million Americans who participate in our capital market so bad? Why are they such awful people that they ought to be singled out and excluded from the tax policy that you have created? Why do you leave out the tax credits for cleaning up brownfield sites? That is something that I have always thought was the cornerstone of the Democratic Party, cleaning up our environment. It is certainly something that we are proud of our record on with Teddy Roosevelt and our conservation effort. We believe that you can use the Tax Code to encourage businesses to go into areas that formerly were environmentally damaged sites and clean them up and create jobs and opportunity in otherwise blighted areas. This is an issue that impacts disproportionately urban areas. Why would we leave them out? The Democratic substitute is silent on these points. It is important that we move forward together with sound economic policies that encourage people to invest and save and be a part of this ever complicated globalized economy, not pick and choose the winners and single out individual cases of success to be punished, which is what their bill seeks to do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Addressing the gentleman's concerns, yesterday 414 Members of the House voted for AMT relief. I am unclear which piece of that the gentleman is referring to that the Democrats had that paid for that as it relates to that. And the gentleman, in reference to his concern about the deficit, which is legitimate and shared by all of us about the growth of the deficit, failed to point out that the deficit has gone down over $100 billion in the last year. The size of the U.S. deficit dropped $100 billion based on the strength of the economy. And finally, to the gentleman's point, he illustrated and spoke very clearly and directly about the Democratic intentions with regard to tax policy. They want to pick and choose the winners in American society, and we want everyone, everyone on equal footing to have the opportunity to achieve their piece of the American dream. We do not propose to pick winners and losers in economic policy and tax policy. We say everybody has got a shot at making the most of their opportunities in this country. Everybody has got a shot at paying less in taxes on capital gains. Everybody has got a shot at paying less in taxes on dividends that are paid by companies that support all Americans. Everybody has got an opportunity to go to college through the tax incentives that are in there for higher education opportunities. Everybody has got an opportunity to achieve home ownership through economic policies that keep interest rates low and inflation in check. That is the difference, an opportunity for each and every individual, according to their own merits and their own hard work, and their own character and their own ability to get out there every day to do it. And the other side's proposal to pick and choose the winners in our society. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would remind the gentleman that AMT relief is not in our package because it passed yesterday in the House by a vote of 414-4. That is why it is not in this package, because it passed yesterday. We all talk about what we do here in Washington as it relates to the economy. The bottom line is that the economy is doing quite well because Americans are out there working hard every day. A lot of them are getting up before the sun comes up and not getting home until the sun goes down, bringing in food and fiber from our fields, manufacturing the devices that we take for granted each and every day in our manufacturing facilities, and working hard in an expanding and robust services economy, going into classrooms, going into hospitals, building houses that are part of the American Dream for more and more Americans. In fact, a record number of Americans now have achieved that piece of the American Dream through homeownership. So it is ordinary Americans doing every day what they do best that is allowing this economy to move forward, and our role in that is to create the climate that allows them to maximize that opportunity, to put in place policies that keep inflation in check, keep interest rates low, and reduce the tax burden in their lives. Today, more corporations pay dividends than at any other time. In fact, there has been a 69 percent increase in S&P 500 companies that pay dividends. It is not only wealthy people that are benefiting from dividend taxes being cut and the corresponding increase in companies paying dividends. In fact, it typically is your retirees who are owning those stocks that they have invested in their whole lives that are paying the dividends to supplement their retirement income. Prior to us changing that policy, the number of companies paying dividends over the last several years had actually gone down by 45 percent; and since the change in the tax that lowered the dividend tax, it went up almost 70 percent. That is a clear indication that what we did here in that small policy changed behavior in the business world to the benefit of all Americans: poor Americans, seniors, middle class, professionals, people who make six figures, people who make five figures. Everybody benefited from that. In fact, disproportionately, seniors benefited from that. Everybody benefits from the fact that unemployment is now at 5 percent. That is indisputable. Would we like to see it go lower? Of course. Would we like to put policies in place that do that? Of course. Does raising taxes on the American people help lower the unemployment rate? I do not think so. Perhaps some on the other side of the aisle would disagree. More Americans own stock today than ever before. This is not a class- warfare argument: 91 million individuals own stock in America. This bill puts in place a policy that encourages more Americans to invest in America. That, I believe, is sound economic policy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, in April Congress passed a responsible budget that called for spending restraint, reduction of the deficit; and by slowing the unsustainable and automatic growth of mandatory spending programs and extending tax relief to families and small businesses, we have successfully accomplished the first two. Now, this rule will provide for consideration of our final commitment to American taxpayers, extending numerous important tax relief provisions. In 2001, 2003 and 2004, Congress enacted responsible tax relief to help create new jobs, grow America's economy, and put more money in the hands of workers, families, small businesses, farms, and ranches. Following this tax relief, unemployment dropped a full percentage point to 5 percent, and we have experienced 10 uninterrupted quarters of real growth in our economy, above 3 percent, the longest stretch since the 1980s. As was proven by the tax cuts during the Kennedy and Reagan administrations, Federal revenues actually increase after taxes are lowered. Our expanding economy is led by consumer spending, job growth, and business investment. This is a result of allowing workers to keep more of their hard-earned money, decreasing the tax burden on small businesses so they can expand and hire more workers, and providing incentives for families to save and invest. Unless we take action today, many of the important tax provisions that have helped our economy grow strong will expire. Without passage of this legislation, workers, families, and small businesses will have less of their paycheck to take home each week. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4297, the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act, not the most eloquent of names but an important one, will continue to build on the economic progress we have already made. A key part of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 was a return to fairness for those who live, work, and raise families in States with no State income tax. The State and local sales tax deduction is particularly important to those in my home State of Florida and nine other States because it gives every taxpayer the opportunity to deduct State sales tax from his Federal tax bill, something that other higher- tax States have enjoyed for some time. This provision is set to expire in 3 weeks. While I will continue to work to make the State and local sales tax deduction permanent, this bill extends the provision for an additional year, which is an important step forward for fairness. The bill also extends several tax incentives to enhance the affordability of higher education, including tax-deferred education savings accounts and tax credits for post-secondary education. It allows all taxpayers to deduct up to $4,000 of higher education expenses, which will help more students go to college. For teachers, the tax bill extends an important above-the-line deduction to help them contain the costs of out-of-pocket classroom expenses such as books, supplies, and computer equipment. We all know that our hardworking educators are covering for some of our neediest students, and this bill lets them keep the tax deductibility of their generosity. In an effort to encourage savings and stable retirement security, this tax bill allows lower-income families that contribute to individual retirement accounts and pension plans to continue receiving a Federal match in the form of an income tax credit for the first $2,000 of annual contributions. This encourages families to save and plan for their own retirement. While we were unable as a body to settle on a Social Security reform plan, surely we can all agree that encouraging low-income families to save for retirement and giving them the tools to do so is a sound economic policy. Our bill freezes the rate on capital gains and dividends and prevents an increase of the tax burden on 24 million families. It is imperative that we extend this tax relief so our economy will continue on its upward track. New data released at the start of December show that our economy continues to strengthen and grow. The Labor Department reported that employers added 215,000 jobs in November, after adding 44,000 in October and 17,000 in September in the wake of devastating hurricanes. The jobless rate remains unchanged at 5 percent. The economy grew at an annual rate of 4.3 percent in the third quarter, much stronger than expected. Forecasters' outlooks for coming months are upbeat as well. November's increase in payroll, the largest since July, was broad- based. Construction employment rose by 37,000. Employment in professional and technical services rose by 22,000. Health care employment rose by 20,000 jobs. Manufacturers added 11,000 jobs last month following an increase of 15,000 in October. The most recent Commerce Department report shows overall consumer spending increased at a 4.2 percent annual rate, exceeding expectations. Purchases of nondurable goods surged 3.6 percent, exceeding expectations. Housing spending came in at 8.4 percent. Business investment spending rose at 8.8 percent, exceeding expectations. Obviously, the current tax policy of this Congress has encouraged economic growth, and to raise taxes now would close the door of opportunity that is open for so many today. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of a substitute bill. While we often hear Democrats decry tax relief, they have decided to offer a substitute that extends many of the same tax provisions as this underlying bill does, but let us look at who they left out. The Democratic substitute does not extend an income tax credit for low-income families who contribute to individual retirement accounts, IRAs, and pension plans. This hurts low-income families who are struggling to save for retirement, people who are doing the right things to prepare for their future rather than solely depending on the government to do it for them. The Democratic substitute does not extend enhanced small business depreciation expensing, so it increases taxes on small businesses, the very engines of innovation and growth and employment in this country. The Democratic substitute does not include an extension of the reduced rates on capital gains and dividends. Without this extension, 24 million families will see a tax increase, including 7 million seniors who have benefited an average of $1,200 annually from that change. At a time when concern is growing about foreign investment in the United States, the Democratic substitute throws up barriers to Americans investing in America. The Democratic substitute does include a tax increase on families and small businesses to pay for the bill. Many of these individuals are small businesses who do much of the hiring and buying in this economy. The Democratic substitute bill leaves behind small businesses, omits low-income savers, and hurts families and seniors. At a time when home heating bills are rising and local property taxes are growing, why would the Democratic substitute take even more from the wallets and purses and piggy banks of the American taxpayer? Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax reforms of 2001, 2003 and 2004 have created jobs, strengthened our economy, and increased Federal revenues in the process. They quantifiably aided in shortening and curtailing the severity of the recession of 2000 and 2001. They buoyed the economy through major terrorist attacks, devastating natural disasters, and a global war on terrorism. Now is not the time to increase taxes on the American people. Failure to pass this bill would result in higher taxes on seniors, savers, small businesses, and farmers. We must continue the policies that grow our economy and keep our tax bills from rising. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and the underlying bill, the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, 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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 588 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the debate here has been consumed by the discussion of capital gains and dividends, and that is a big part of this and that is appropriate. But the AMT relief component, which has been the source of much recent debate, we dealt with yesterday. We dealt with it on a vote of 414-4, overwhelming, bipartisan, on the suspension calendar, which I will remind Members under the rule, requires a two-thirds vote to pass. It is out of here. The AMT relief bill moved through here in an expeditious manner on a bipartisan basis. What this bill does is provide continued assistance for those people who are saving to go to college. Middle- and low-income students, this is their shot at going to college. Assistance for those who are saving for retirement, seniors, low income, saving through an IRA and a pension plan for retirement. Ten States that do not have a State income tax that want the same tax treatment that high-tax States have, this expires in 3 weeks unless we pass the bill. Just one of several important components in this tax relief package. It is vitally important that we pass this and not allow taxes to go up 3 weeks from now on those 10 States, not allow teachers to lose their deductibility on classroom supplies, not allow low-income seniors and savers to be punished under the Democratic plan. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to support the rule and support the underlying bill. 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, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4297.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee may meet next week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 7 p.m. on Tuesday, December 13, 2005. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as reported by the Judiciary Committee on December 8, 2005, which is expected to be filed with the House next week. Members are also advised that the text should be available for their review on the Web sites of the Judiciary and Rules Committees by Friday, December 9. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House vacate the ordering of the yeas and nays on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1400 to the end that the Chair may put the question on the motion de novo.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before we get too deep into this debate, let us go ahead and straighten out three myths. Myth number one is the myth of the cuts, because only in Washington and only in the other side's rhetoric is a reduction in the rate of increase considered a cut. When growth rates are going from 7.5 percent to 7.3 percent or from 6.3 to 6 percent and programs are getting more dollars the next year than they got the year before, that is not a cut. Myth number two, that it is mean. What could be mean about demanding that services to people who need them the most are administered effectively, wisely, and efficiently? Is it waste in programs that administer to our most needy and our most vulnerable, the worst kind of waste? Do we not have a special obligation to root out those dollars that have been directed to the people who need them the most but are not finding their way there because of inefficiencies in our government? And, thirdly, that this is somehow part of an overall scheme that is tied in with preventing tax increases. There are two separate packages moving. You have an opportunity, you have an opportunity to vote against keeping the tax rates where they are and allowing them to rise. You have an opportunity to do that. But you have a separate opportunity, through regular order, through the ordinary process, through all the individual committees, to also take a stand to correct and rein in mandatory spending that is out of control and is gobbling up the Federal budget. You have that opportunity. Two separate votes. You can be for savings and still vote to let taxes go up on another day, but do not try to have it both ways. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) to elaborate on these points.

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, this is an historic evening, an evening when we have come together to truly chart the course for the Federal Government's spending over the next number of years. House Resolution 560 provides for consideration of H.R. 4241, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 is the first time since 1997 that such a measure has come this far. The rule provides 2 hours of debate and a motion to recommit with or without instructions. As a member of both the Rules and the Budget Committee, I am pleased to bring this historic resolution to the floor for our consideration. Mr. Speaker, most all Americans rely on the government to provide security for themselves and their families, for their Nation. After defense, though, expectations vary widely about what Americans expect out of their government. But those expectations, whatever they may be, they all are rooted in the common need, the common expectation that whatever government does, that it be done wisely, prudently, efficiently, without waste or abuse of their hard-earned tax dollars. The congressional budget process is a chance to ensure that our government behaves in a fiscally responsible and responsive manner to provide opportunity and security for today and for future generations. In my first term in Congress I was appointed to the Budget Committee. I was pleased that this assignment would afford me the opportunity to receive the full scope of all the programs that exist, all the agencies, all the departments that fall under the umbrella of the Federal Government. But I was shocked when I got on that committee to learn how little control Congress actually exerts over spending in many of these agencies and programs. Discretionary spending, that portion of the budget that consumes all the sound and fury that a Congress can manufacture, makes up less than half of total spending, half of the total budget. Mandatory spending, entitlement spending, that spending that is on autopilot, accounts for 54 percent of the total budget and, if left unchecked, in a decade will consume nearly two-thirds, or 62 percent, of total Federal spending. I have been dismayed at how Congress has allowed its voice to become fainter and fainter when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars on entitlement programs. It is time that this Congress take responsibility for the entire spending picture. We cannot avoid the tough decisions. It is our job to set the priorities of government and then fund them appropriately. It is our job to practice thorough oversight of the programs and agencies that consume our tax dollars. We must find the waste, the fraud, the abuse in the programs and blaze a trail to smarter, more responsive government. Anyone watching the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina would agree that government was neither smart nor responsive. The time has come for this House to reassert its role and take back control of both discretionary and mandatory spending. This legislation is another step towards smarter and more confident government. The congressional budget resolution called for a reduction in discretionary spending; and for the first time since 1997, it included deficit reduction instructions to authorizing committees to find and achieve mandatory savings for a more accountable government. It does this by finding smarter ways to spend and by slowing the rate of growth in the Federal Government. Eight different authorizing committees have worked hard to find these savings within their individual jurisdictions through regular order, through individual members practicing their individual expertise, through their individual interests on their authorizing committees. Regular order was used to develop this plan for a smarter government, and I want to commend those chairmen and all those committee members, not just the Budget Committee members, not just the Appropriations Committee members, but the entire House who participated in this process and, through their aggressive oversight, identified nearly $50 billion in inefficiencies. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), our budget chairman, and his ranking member and all the members of the Committee on the Budget of the House for their hard work, for preparing the deficit reduction package. I look forward to passing this reform bill and reaffirming sound oversight and fiscal accountability here in Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, 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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 560 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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