Adam Putnam

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman referred to the entire county, not his piece of the county, and I certainly am well aware of Pahokee and Belle Glade and the challenges that they have gone through. But I believe somewhere in your county you have an afterschool program.

Mr. PUTNAM. Would the gentleman shut down the government to prevent that from occurring?

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, does the gentleman object to us funding the government through December 17?

Mr. PUTNAM. Just briefly, I respect the gentleman's observation that the majority party in the Senate is the party that I share, the Republican party, but I learned a long time ago to stop trying to answer for that Chamber over there. That is a tough body to figure out. The gentleman knows as well as I do that they tend to bog down in the oratory and slow down on the action.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman clearly has come to the floor a little bit early, because all of these things are going to be eligible for debate here in another several hours when we move forward on our deficit reduction package, and the gentleman will have an opportunity to exercise through his vote that savings process, that deficit reduction process. But I am just curious, in all the gentleman's rhetoric, what would you do differently about the continuing resolution that funds government through December 17 until we finish our regular appropriations process?

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 558 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my neighbor and friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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 558 is a rule that provides for consideration of House Joint Resolution 72, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2006. As we approach the end of the week and the time that we will be taking in our districts to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday, this particular rule and the CR probably are among the least controversial things that the gentleman from Florida and I will discuss today. I look forward to an abbreviated debate on this. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution and provides one motion to recommit. I want to commend Chairman Lewis, Ranking Member Obey, and the entire Appropriations Committee in the House for the determined effort this year to avoid an omnibus spending bill. This is something that unfortunately has become a routine part of our end-of-the-year appropriations process and Chairman Lewis under tremendous leadership with a great committee behind him has managed to avoid that this year, in fact, setting almost a record by completing all of the House's work on the appropriations process before July 4. The committee has practiced due diligence and is working to pass each of these bills individually rather than having them attached as a train at the end of the year. This continuing resolution is necessary because our friends on the other side of the Rotunda are a little bit further behind in their appropriations process and we are working through the conference report stage. This CR will allow the appropriators to continue that conferencing work to ensure that we have a clean appropriations process where bills are moving individually in the regular order. Today we are considering the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Bill which leaves just three outstanding appropriations conference reports. The underlying resolution permits Congress to finish its work and provide the President adequate time to review the measures before signing them into law. H.J. Res. 72 simply extends the previous continuing resolution through December 17. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is a one sentence change, only shifting the date to December 17 for the continuing operations for the government. The CR is a clean continuation of H.J. Res. 68, which passed the House in September by a vote of 348-65, and which funded programs and activities at the lowest of the House-passed level, the Senate-passed level or the fiscal year 2005 current rate and included language prohibiting agencies from resuming or initiating programs for procurement not funded in FY 2005 and prohibited agencies from awarding new grants and other forms of assistance during the period of continuing resolution. Throughout the appropriations process, the appropriators have demonstrated their commitment to fiscal responsibility by working within the framework we established in the budget resolution earlier this year. Again, I want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the entire committee and staff of the Appropriations Committee for their hard work this year. I urge Members to support the rules and the underlying continuing resolution so we can finish the appropriations process in regular order and continue on our way toward responsibly funding the needs of America. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Perhaps I misspoke earlier saying that this would be the least controversial item we would deal with this morning. I recognize that we all had to get up early to be at Rules this morning, and apparently it is affecting some of our temperaments. I would just point out that we finished all of the House's work, and I gave equal credit to both our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the rest of his committee and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who finished all of our work by July 4, all of our appropriations processes in regular order, in an individual manner instead of having to bundle them up into a train at the end of the legislative season. To date, we have finished seven of those 11 appropriations bills. We will do the eighth in a couple of hours here on this floor today, which leaves three remaining waiting to be returned from their conference work with the Senate. So it is often said at times in the House that your opposition is the other party, but your enemy is the other Chamber. And when it comes to the enemy of time and being at the end of the legislative calendar, that, unfortunately, is the case with the appropriations process that we are waiting on regular order, the conference committees with the House and the Senate to finish their work on those three remaining bills. With respect to the gentleman's concerns about a closed rule, this is a continuing resolution that is one sentence long. It funds the operations of government from now until December 17. The stifling of debate is nonexistent. There are no speakers on either side for this. The fact that it is a closed rule indicates that there is really no other option about how to approach a continuing resolution other than should it be December 16 instead of December 17? Would the gentleman have the CR expire on Thanksgiving Day when no one will be in this Chamber to act to fund the operations of the government so that national parks remain open and Social Security checks continue to go out? What would the amendments be that the gentleman would offer if December 17 is an inadequate solution to funding the operations of government until we finish the three remaining conference reports on appropriations? To say that that is stifling democracy is nothing more than hyperbole. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman is passionate about his concern for the fiscal well- being, but he is clearly misdirected in the sense that he will have an opportunity to vote on a number of these deficit reduction measures, a number of these savings, a number of these government reform mechanisms; and he will have the opportunity to present all of the things that he talked about in his own recommittal motion, which is a right that has been granted to the minority party. So all of the things that he talked about, all of the things that he objects to, the sound agricultural policy that guarantees that we continue to have the safest, cheapest food supply in the world, if you want to cut those things, you can put it in your program. If you do not like the fact that we are taking Pell grants up, you could object to that through your recommittal motion. The point is that we are here today debating the rule on the continuing resolution of the government because we have three regular order appropriations bills yet to move, because I believe, to our credit and to this Chamber's credit, to the credit of the entire House, we are not moving a last minute omnibus choo-choo train that all of us have to go home and then discover something in that that we are not real terribly proud of. I think it is a credit to the appropriators on both sides of the aisle and a credit, frankly, to both Chambers, and as the gentleman from Florida has pointed out, under Republican leadership, that are bringing us 11 individual appropriations bills that can be voted on up or down. You have an opportunity to make your position publicly known on each of those bills, rather than having things stuffed into a last-minute train, which all of us object to and which diminishes the status 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 am prepared to close, and we have kicked off quite a debate here this morning. We know that it is going to be a long day as we approach the debate over the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill, the ongoing debate over the continuing resolution to fund our government, and later today the deficit reduction package, which I dare say will not take food from any child in America's mouth, despite the overheated rhetoric of the gentleman from Oregon, respectfully the gentleman from Florida and a number of others on that side of the aisle who it would appear from their media statements discuss in the salons and parlors of the Beltway whether Republicans hate children or old people more. I dare say that as we bring up this Deficit Reduction Act, which finally for the first time since 1997 puts us back on a serious track to finding savings not just in the discretionary side of our spending but in the mandatory side which makes up over half of Federal spending today and which slows the rate of growth in government, again, one of those Washington, D.C.-style cuts, where budgets grow 7 percent instead of 7.3 percent or they grow 6 percent instead of 6.3 percent, and we find $50 billion worth of savings in a $2.5 trillion per year budget. So $50 billion in savings over 5 years in what would then be a $14 trillion pot. I think that almost any American would say I think that my budget growing 7 percent instead of 7.3 percent is acceptable, and I dare say to my friend from Florida, who represents, among other counties, Palm Beach County, Florida, the home of Lake Worth Avenue among other places. I think there are a number of counties that would gladly trade their tax base for his, and I would also say that I believe that somewhere in Palm Beach County there is an afterschool program of some shape or form. There must be an afterschool program somewhere in all of Palm Beach County, Florida. I believe that as we move through this debate it is important for us to be responsible in our rhetoric and keep our eyes on the ball, which is the looming fiscal crisis that is out there if Congress does not have the courage to get its arms around mandatory spending, which is consuming Federal spending, making up over 50 percent of it today and two-thirds of Federal spending.

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

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's clever props, notwithstanding the holiday stockings, I would point out to the gentleman who repeatedly referred to this being done in the dead of night that in his home district it is 5:30 in the afternoon and people are driving home from work. So for the dead of night on the west coast, the people on the east coast will know that we are not working a nine to five job and that we are pushing ahead with the agenda of reforming the inefficiencies that lay in government. I would also point out to the gentleman that between 1999 and 2003, total child support enforcement administrative expenditures went up almost 30 percent; 29 percent between 1999 and 2003, as the case load declined 8 percent. Again, their rhetoric does not match well with the facts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is utilizing the rules that are at his disposal, and I think that it is appropriate that he do that. It is a positive reflection on this House that these types of tools are available to the minority to stymie the progress, and we appreciate the gentleman's ability to use those. But it would be important to have the facts be accurate, and the facts are that these administrative costs that are being discussed in this bill are a shift in what has been a double-dipping practice that has been used by States to draw down Federal dollars and then collect administrative costs as if the original Federal dollar had been generated in that State in the first place. This is not, as the gentleman has characterized, the Grinch or any other mean-spirited person taking treats from children or from their holiday stockings that have arrived a month and a half early. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. We do not have any additional speakers, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's reference to the CBO numbers. We also have the CBO numbers. They are available on a bipartisan basis. The CBO numbers clearly show that total collections will continue to go up. $24.8 billion in 2006, $26 billion in 2010, $31.7 billion by 2015. The gentleman has referred to this provision as the most callous part of the deficit reduction package. I hope that everyone else on his team remembers that because you can only have one number one. You can only have one most egregious part. So as we get into the discussions about Medicaid and food stamps and student loans and all the things that we heard about this morning when we were talking about the continuing resolution, let us remember that this one is the most egregious, that this one is the most callous because you can only have one number one. I know that this is nothing but the first salvo in a historic debate about the direction that this country is heading. I agree with the gentleman that it is important that we go back to our districts and we talk about these plans, because the fact of the matter is we have a plan. And the fact of the matter is that you don't. The fact of the matter is that you can criticize all you want about where we have chosen to reform government, to find efficiencies, to better deliver services to the people who need them the most while you can go home and criticize the changes that we offer without having to defend your own plan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, this is an important opening to the grand debate that we are unveiling here this evening about the direction of entitlement spending and the direction of Federal spending in this Congress and for our Nation. We have heard an awful lot about the term ``cuts'' and we have seen the cute props and we have heard the first of what will be many metaphors of snatching food from the mouths of children and all kinds of heated rhetoric. But at the end of the day, the numbers don't lie. The numbers are that child support collections under this proposal continue to go up. Do they go up as fast as the Democrats would like? Apparently not, judging by the rhetoric. But only in Washington and only in their rhetoric is that a cut. The bottom line is that this next fiscal year, 2006, it is $23.8 billion. By 2010, it is $26 billion. And by 2015, it is almost $32 billion. Under every arithmetic, old math, new math, poor school districts, wealthy school districts, all across America, those numbers are going up. Those numbers mean more money to those States for the important task of enforcing child support responsibilities by all noncustodial parents. So despite the references to the smugness, despite the fact that we have been accused of being in the pockets of deadbeat dads, the numbers continue to climb for administrative costs. None of these even affect the actual program. They are defending the administration of the program instead of the outcome of that program, which is more money getting to those families, more fathers, more mothers who are noncustodial living up to their obligations. That is really what it ought to be about, is it not, the outcome? Not the administrative fees, that are going up anyway? Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the rule has given the gentleman this opportunity for us to open the debate in this way. Unfortunately his rhetoric outpaces the facts. I would urge the Members to reject this proposal and allow us to move forward with reforming government. With that, I would ask the Members to vote ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just point out that the gentleman has two votes coming up, one where he can do something about the spending and one where he can make clear the position on either raising taxes or not raising taxes. There are two separate and distinct votes. He cannot have it both ways. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Blue Dogs are stuck in the dog box of their leadership. They need to get off of the porch and bring a plan to the table. The chairman of the Budget Committee testified before the Rules Committee, asking that a substitute be made in order. The 12-step plan was still stuck someplace else. The Blue Dogs were still on the porch. The Blue Dogs were still locked in the box. They did not come forward with an opportunity to present their own plan. They are free to criticize ours. We are big boys and girls. We are going to stand by this plan, and we are going to move it forward because it is important that we back up what their rhetoric is, which is that mandatory and entitlement spending is eating up this budget and somebody has got to do something about it besides just bark. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my apologies for besmirching the reputation of the Blue Dogs. It is clear that their bark is still in place, though their bite is lacking. Mr. Speaker, that was quite a performance, and I respect the gentleman's passion; but I do not respect the fact that he chose to personalize the debate, an important debate about the future of our Nation. I do not like the way that he characterized me; I do not like the way that he characterized the gentleman from Texas. It seems to me that the sensitivities about the reputation of the Blue Dogs is where the thin skin really lies. Mr. Speaker, this budget is about the future and this organization has created the impression over a number of years of fiscal responsibility; and yet time after time after time when given the opportunity to truly do something about it, they just fade away. They just go back to the porch. Instead of taking the tough votes, instead of bringing real reform and making government work better so future generations of men and women and businesses and children and all aspects, instead of guaranteeing a bright future for all Americans, they just choose to talk about it. The gentleman is right when he said that our younger generation is going to be most impacted by these fiscal decisions. They are. That is why we are here today to try to do something about it. They are here today to just talk about it. Where is their plan to rein in the overarching growth of Federal spending? What are they going to do about the fact that entitlement spending takes up over half of the budget and will soon take up two-thirds? Where was their plan about what they were going to do for these same women and children, as if the country was only made up of women and children, that benefit from these programs, what about all Americans? What were you going to do about this generation and future generations' retirement security? The same thing you were going to do about this, just talk about it, but not actually take the tough votes to do anything about securing their future. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I have not memorized all of Matthew, but I am pretty sure he did not like calling kids Nimrods. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).