Adam Putnam

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his dedication to improving the Head Start program.

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding me time. I thank the chairman for agreeing to this colloquy in order to shine a light on an unfortunate recurring situation in some Head Start agencies. Stories of corrupt agencies have been surfacing recently all over the Nation, complete with allegations of administrators' misconduct with Federal funds and financial conflicts of interest between board members and vendors. Accountability is a critical component of this reauthorization, and I thank the chairman for his commitment for addressing it. On February 10 of this year, I introduced H.R. 778, the Head Start Accountability Act of 2005, to address the misuse and abuse of Federal funds occurring in an agency in my district as well as others. The Polk County Opportunity Council has had a decade-long history in fundamental flaws in both operations and management. PCOC has displayed an obvious lack of internal controls and, worse, a blatant disregard for its fiduciary responsibilities associated with proper stewardship of Federal grant funds. There is documented evidence that this organization has misused Federal dollars and made several excessive and unnecessary expenditures, including the approval of $150,000 for repairs to a parking lot, repairs that had a quoted cost of just $20,000. They also obtained $90,000 in Federal funds to repair some Head Start facilities reportedly damaged in last summer's hurricanes that tore through Florida. However, their insurance inspection determined that the facilities had no damage. I could go on and on listing examples of financial mismanagement at this agency. I introduced the Head Start Accountability Act to immediately address the seemingly unending pattern that was developing in that agency and similar organizations. H.R. 778's major provisions would address the most glaring improprieties. Among the provisions in H.R. 778, the bill calls for automatic recompetition of all Federal Head Start Federal grants every 5 years, establishes new board requirements, adds tighter fiscal control requirements at the local level. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for recognizing the importance of these provisions and including the key principles in this reauthorization. Under his leadership, we are finally moving toward financial accountability. I look forward to working with my colleague in the future toward further refinement of these accountability measures.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the figs and the gigs, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 387 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just take one moment to correct something that was said by my friend from Massachusetts about this week being filled with renaming of post offices. We have also managed to find time this week to pass the first comprehensive postal reform in years. There is the strong likelihood of at least a couple of appropriations conference reports; the Central American Free Trade Agreement; a highway conference report; an energy conference report; and a bill to get strict with China about enforcing our trade agreements. The gentlewoman from New York is correct. This bill was up for a vote yesterday on the suspension calendar. Under House rules it requires a two-thirds vote to be passed. It garnered 240 votes, shy of two-thirds, but a clear majority, with 19 Democrats also believing that it was important to enforce trade agreements with China. It was our mistake, apparently, to believe that there would be even broader bipartisan support, to believe that there would be more than 19 Democrats who would want to enforce our trade agreements with China. So it is back today where it requires a majority vote to pass. So for the second day, we will have an opportunity to devote the time and resources to debate the need for our country to enforce trade agreements with China; to keep our commitments that have been negotiated and passed in the Congress; to make sure that the resources are in the Department of Commerce and the resources are in the ITC, the International Trade Commission, and the resources are in the Trade Representative's Office to make sure that we are monitoring the compliance of the Chinese Government with preexisting laws, with preexisting trade agreements so that our manufacturers, our employers, our jobs in America do not suffer. That is why we are back here today. I am happy to yield, Mr. Speaker, 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), another leader on this issue. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As the gentleman is aware, House rules allow for the motion to recommit and sets aside time for debate on the Democratic alternative to the legislation that we are considering here. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman on the other side of the aisle, for whom I have a great deal of respect, from New Jersey represents a major industrial State, lots of manufacturers. I would just say that this is clearly a bill that is more than a fig leaf. Application of U.S. countervailing duty law to exports from nonmarket economies is more than an empty gesture: $6 million per year in additional money to USTR beyond the President's request, up to $45 million and earmarked for the General Counsel, Office of Monitoring and Compliance; the suspension for 3 years of bonding authority; increased teeth, increased enforcement, increased compliance to make the Chinese follow the law and agreements that we have already signed and agreed to. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the sponsor of this legislation, and someone who has worked for years very diligently on all the issues relating to China.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a huge week for the Congress, a big week for the House of Representatives. We are passing out major postal reform for the first time in years, a highway bill that has been in the making for over 2 Congresses now, an energy conference report that has also been in the making for over 2 Congresses now; the opportunity to have at least one and perhaps as many as three appropriations conference reports behind us as we enter the August district work period; and a Central American Free Trade Agreement, as well as a bill that gets tough with China, that finally holds our administration's feet and the feet of, either party's feet to the fire, and requires that they monitor and enforce the existing trade agreements that have been enacted by this Congress. This bill has been called a smoke screen, it has been called a fig leaf, it has been called a number of demeaning terms. But at the end of the day, this is a real worthwhile enforcement tool that gives Members the opportunity to show the folks back home where they are on fair level trade with China. The application of U.S. countervailing duty law on nonmarket economies is not an empty gesture. A system of comprehensive monitoring of Chinese compliance with their trade obligations on intellectual property rights; market access for our American goods, services, and agriculture; an accounting of the Chinese subsidies; increased transparency so that we know what the government ownership is, we know what they are subsidizing, we know how much. Those are more than fig leaves, Mr. Speaker. It requires reporting by Treasury to define the currency manipulation and to analyze the effect of what the Chinese did with their new exchange rate mechanism this week. That is not a smoke screen. A $6 million a year increase above the President's request, up to almost $45 million a year for the general counsel and an office of monitoring and compliance. That is not an empty promise. That is a real meaningful resource to improve our ability to track the Chinese subsidy and the potential manipulation of the global marketplace that is out of compliance with our trade agreements. The suspension for 3 years of the availability of bonds for new shippers in antidumping cases. Meaningful, meaningful reform. And funding for the ITC and an ITC report on the sensitivity of U.S. trade and jobs to the currency policy, something that on a bipartisan basis we have heard a great deal of angst about from Members of Congress. That is a reflection of what is going on in the countryside that there are genuine fears out there about currency manipulation. This bill gives us an opportunity to get our arms around how extensive that is and what effect the reforms and the step forward the Chinese Government made this week will have on our economy and our employment base. This is an outstanding bill, Mr. Speaker. We have debated it now, this is the second day, first on the suspension calendar, admittedly with the belief that it would garner two-thirds support from this Chamber in the belief that everyone would share in the need to crack down on Chinese abuse of trade agreements, that everyone would agree that we need to put as many tools in the tool kit as possible to enforce and monitor their compliance, to bring about that transparency so that the world community can see what is going on, can see where there are distortions, can see where there is manipulation; and now it is back today for a straight up-or-down vote. Yesterday, it got 240 votes. Today, I hope it gets even more. Yesterday there were 19 Democrats who supported it. There were five Republicans who opposed it. It is a bipartisan effort, bipartisan angst, bipartisan support. I urge the Members to pass the rule and the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One of the items that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) mentioned that I agree wholeheartedly with is the rise of China is one of the most significant developments of the 21st century, and that is why it is so critically important that we make sure that the trade agreements that exist between our country and theirs are enforced and are monitored. That is what this bill does. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a man from a heavy industry and manufacturing State who understands well the challenges imposed by the lack of enforcement of these agreements.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 387 is a closed rule that provides 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted. H. Res. 387 also provides one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 3283, the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act. The legislation passed the House of Representatives yesterday by a majority vote of 240 to 186, but did not garner the necessary two-thirds vote to pass under suspension of the rules. Over the past 25 years, U.S.-China trade has risen from $5 billion to $231 billion, and China is now our third largest trading partner. In 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization by notifying the WTO they had formally ratified the WTO agreements. However, a report released in December of 2004 by the U.S. Trade Representative stated that while China has worked hard to comply with its WTO commitments, they have not always been satisfactory. Major areas of concern identified in the report included intellectual property rights, agricultural services, industrial policies, trading rights and distribution, and transparency of trade laws. This legislation addresses these concerns by creating concrete mechanisms to ensure that China abides by its previous commitments and that we renew our efforts to level the playing field for American manufacturers competing against subsidized Chinese goods. Specifically, the bill would establish a monitoring system to track China's compliance with its trade obligations on intellectual property rights, market access for U.S. goods, services, and agriculture, and accounting of Chinese subsidies so that we open it up and have that transparency that has been lacking to date. The system would require that the President issue semiannual reports to Congress on China's progress in meeting these commitments. Mr. Speaker, our domestic goods manufacturers are currently at a disadvantage because they are forced to compete with imported goods subsidized by foreign governments or public entities that can be sold at lower prices. H.R. 3283 would apply U.S. countervailing duty law to exports from nonmarket economies, such as China, to give our manufacturers the tools they need here in America to compete with nonmarket economies in those countries. The bill also tightens the rules on antidumping duties by requiring cash deposits, and suspending for 3 years the availability of bonds for new shippers in antidumping cases in order to prevent those shippers from defaulting on their obligations. H.R. 3283 increases funding for the U.S. Trade Representative to improve the monitoring and enforcement of U.S. trade agreements, something that we hear about an awful lot on this floor, the lack of enforcement of prior trade agreements. This directs the trade representative to make that a priority. The bill also authorizes funding for the U.S. International Trade Commission and requires the commission to conduct a comprehensive study on the sensitivity of U.S. trade and jobs to current policies. Mr. Speaker, in today's global marketplace, it is vital that trade obligations be enforced and that our manufacturers and producers be allowed to fairly compete in our markets here at home and those abroad. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments and certainly understand the importance that she has placed on us rectifying the situation with regard to veterans funding and as it relates to highway spending. I am glad that the House by unanimous consent, before we took this rule up, adopted the extension of the existing highway authorization. So I am glad we have taken that off the table. It is precisely the type of immediate action that we need to take before we go home for the district work period. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman continues to say this is a partisan issue. I would venture to agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh): the vote on this will be anything but partisan. I would venture to say that the support for restoring the $975 million mistake that the VA made will be a very broad, bipartisan, nonpartisan vote because I cannot imagine that anybody would stand in the way of that money finding its way into the veterans' hands, and the medical clinics and hospitals that so desperately need it. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has identified the need as being $1.5 billion. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) has identified the need as being $3 billion. The VA and the administration has said it is $975 million. If we as a House pass that $975 million, get it into the hands of the people who need it, if we find between now and the end of the fiscal year, because that is the number that has been stated that is needed for the remainder of the fiscal year, but we will be back here in a week, and if we find that more is needed, without question it would be given again on a broad bipartisan vote. But we believe that the correct number based on the new actuarial study, based on the request of the Secretary, based on the request of the administration is $975 million. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) believes it is $3 billion, but she is only willing to put half of that up by asking for $1.5 billion. We are willing to fund all that we believe the VA has requested to get them through the remainder of this fiscal year. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of huge importance to all of our veterans. I think that all of us on a broad bipartisan basis should pass this rule which allows us to get this money to them. I want to correct another issue that continues to be repeated by the other side of the aisle. The Senate has not passed a penny for the veterans. It has been reported out of their committee. What we are doing here tonight allows the entire House to act on this appropriations request and get it over there to the Senate as quickly as possible. As usual, we are ahead of the Senate on this issue, and we are acting as quickly as possible to get them the request the administration has made for the remainder of the fiscal year. It has not been taken up by the Senate. It has not passed out of the Senate, it has only come out of committee. We have put this thing on the fast track to get veterans the help they need.

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from New York for pointing out the flaws in the argument. If we pass the $975 million tonight, the Senate can take it up tomorrow. The relief is there immediately. It is not a game of political one-upsmanship or the Polk County fair where we have this bidding contest going on. The $975 million is out there before the July 4 break. It will be on the Senate's desk for them to take up. That is the responsible approach for this House to adopt at this point in the week as we continue to work through all of our avenues of support to get all of this assistance and help and rehabilitation to the veterans in need.

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to comment, as the gentleman is aware, that this rule allows us to move that funding as expeditiously as possible. It requires a two-thirds vote from the House to move forward. I am hopeful that he and the rest of his side will support us on this rule so that we can get that fix through. We can then restore the full funding to the veterans that they require. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman attempted to give his version of the history. The history speaks for itself. Concurrent receipts is an issue that was never brought to the floor under the Democratic majority. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a champion for veterans, filed that bill year after year after year for over a decade. It did not get a hearing until the Republicans took over. It was the Republican majority that passed it. It is under Republican leadership that funding per veteran has nearly doubled. Where the rubber meets the road, as the gentleman put it, has been in funding and support for America's soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and our veterans; and it is unfortunate that we had this actuarial model problem, but the fact of the matter is this rule allows us to fix it tonight. I hope my colleagues will support that rule. Because of that fact, it is freeing up those funds for our veterans to correct this problem. It is also allowing us to move forward on other issues before we go home for the 4th of July work period. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas is a champion for veterans and has been for years, and I do not take anything away from him on that. But the fact of the matter is that for the last 10 years, veterans funding per veteran has doubled under Republican leadership. The funding overall has continued to grow. It has grown, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) pointed out, at the highest rate of any agency in the government. As I said earlier, the vote on this issue will not be a partisan one. Every Member is committed to move this funding to the veterans as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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