Adam Putnam

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment today that would direct the GAO to conduct a study to determine the effects the enactment of H.R. 3915 will have on the availability and affordability of credit for homebuyers and mortgage lending, and then submit a report to Congress containing the findings and conclusions within 1 year of enactment. With that, I would yield to my chairman.

Mr. PUTNAM. So the gentleman would agree that we could join together and request the study even prior to final passage of the bill?

Mr. PUTNAM. I thank the gentleman. And I look forward to joining him on that request to the GAO. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, it's good to be here joining my Florida colleagues on an issue of such great importance not only to the State of Florida, but to the whole country. As we discussed during committee, I believe there is a role for a public-private partnership in managing risk. Whether it's a hurricane on the gulf coast, an earthquake or wildfire in California, tornadoes across the central plains, the truth of the matter is any catastrophe is a terrible experience for a State, a business, or certainly a family to endure. But we're not here to just talk about any catastrophe. We're here to talk about mega-catastrophes, or mega-disasters, the kind of the scale and the scope that displace entire towns, entire regions for months, if not years. This amendment, in my view, offers a commonsense protection for the taxpayers who are not affected by that particular disaster in holding participating States accountable for any liquidity or catastrophic loans that they may be eligible to receive should they experience this type of disaster that the private marketplace cannot cover, in which case they may seek this temporary financial assistance. The amendment says that as a condition for a State to receive a loan, it is required to agree not to repay with Federal funds, and the Secretary of the Treasury has to enforce that agreement. If a State qualifies for a loan and then proceeds to get a liquidity or a catastrophic loan, they have to pay it back with State funds. They can't transfer Federal disaster money and then use that as a way of repaying what the Feds have given them. That is, essentially, double dipping. I believe this amendment goes a long way to ensure that a State uses caution when entering into a loan for which that State is solely responsible for repayment. Let me state clearly that this legislation we are debating is not meant to, nor should it ever, alleviate a State of its fiduciary responsibilities, nor should it replace the private marketplace. Rather, it is meant to assist in those times of extreme damage and ruin when a State or the private market cannot meet the State's or region's capacity. I encourage any State that decides to participate in the consortium or has a qualified reinsurance program to work beyond the bill's scope and promote greater mitigation, actuarially sound rates, and fiscal responsibility. I recognize that some of my colleagues have concerns about this, but I believe we are all trying to find the right balance. I believe that the sponsors of this have done their very best to find that right balance and move this public policy forward to the House floor, and I appreciate that. One of the things that make our country great is the way we all rise to the occasion in solidarity with our fellow citizens who are suffering when a major disaster strikes. Rather than expect the Federal Government to save a State from all such liability, we should be encouraging those located in, high-risk, catastrophic areas to be better prepared for the inevitable. This legislation takes an important step forward toward that, and instead of expecting the Federal Government to take on that entire responsibility, we are working towards that partnership that allows for States to voluntarily participate in the program and finally bring them to the table as a true stakeholder. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, against my better judgment, I asked for a recorded vote on something I had won. As good as it would feel to see it up there in lights, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the request for a recorded vote on the Putnam amendment to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, on October 22, 2007 I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 983, 984 and 985. Had I been present, I would have voted: rollcall vote 983, ``no'', rollcall vote 984, ``aye'', rollcall vote 985, ``aye''.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican Conference, I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 722) and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican Conference, I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 699) and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, on September 26, 2007 I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes No. 912 and No. 913. Had I been present, I would have voted: Rollcall vote No. 912: ``aye.'' Rollcall vote No. 913: ``nay.''

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker: on Tuesday, September 25, 2007, I had obligations that caused me to miss three votes. Had I been here, I would have voted: ``nay'' on the Previous Question on the Rule for H.R. 976 (SCHIP). ``Nay'' on the Rule for H.R. 976 (SCHIP). ``Yea'' on H. Res. 95 ``Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives supporting the goals and ideals of Campus Fire Safety Month, and for other purposes.''

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, I had a meeting at the White House and was unable to make it to the Capitol for one vote. I would have voted ``yea'' in favor of ``The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Bill'' (H.R. 3580).

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, we have a number of speakers on this so I want to be brief. One of the common misperceptions about the farm bill that didn't used to be a misperception, it used to be a reality and was very frustrating to taxpayers, was that professional athletes and broadcasters and people like that could game the system to receive conservation payments. And to the chairman and Mr. Goodlatte's credit, this bill does make significant strides towards improving the commitment to conservation. However, there is a change in the bill that is disturbing which lowers the AGI limit for eligibility for conservation payments. The effect of that is that it takes out what had been a requirement that 75 percent of your income be farm income, and in the process of doing that, it eliminates many of the most successful farmers who are doing their best to take advantage of government-matching dollars to improve their operations from an environmental perspective. It eliminates their ability to do so. And setting aside the family farm narrative, if you are truly a family farm, where you have multiple generations operating, then for sheer survival you have to grow in order to feed grandpa and dad and two brothers and their families who are all in the dairy business or in the livestock business. If this language were to remain in the bill as is, the Florida Department of Agriculture reports unofficially that roughly half of Florida producers would be ineligible for conservation payments. Many of the producers on the Chesapeake watershed, we've heard a lot today about the Chesapeake, the Everglades watershed, irrigation projects in the American West would be ineligible for these matching dollars because of this new AGI limitation. And I would urge Members to review this carefully and adopt this amendment so that these conservation payments would find their way to the farmers that are doing the best job, that are the most successful and are full-time. These are not hobby farmers. These are full-time agricultural producers in America who are feeding this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my fellow cosponsor from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have additional speakers opposed to the amendment?

Mr. PUTNAM. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate, while this has a major impact on specialty crop and dairy and livestock States like California and Florida, it is a national issue because under current law, if 75 percent of your income is from farms, then you are eligible for this higher AGI. By taking that out, you are redirecting conservation dollars from people who are full-time farmers, full-time producers, presumably the people that the farm bill is intended to benefit, and directing it to hobby farmers, people who are enjoying their gentlemanly estates in the suburbs of Washington or New York or other metropolitan areas, where they enjoy the bucolic lifestyle, while the people who get up before dawn every morning and go to bed after dark every night, and live and die by the vagaries of the marketplace and pests and disease will be ineligible for the additional conservation help. So you either drive them out of business because of the impact on watersheds, or you will pay for it out of a different program; but one way or the other you will either drive agriculture out of the Chesapeake, drive agriculture out of the Glades, drive agriculture out of the prairie potholes, out of the Dakotas, out of the flyways, or we can make this minor amendment to let the people who farm full time eligible for the green payments that recognize the social benefits that come from their activities. I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I thank my friend from Florida for his assistance.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. I thank my ranking member for the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to lament a real missed opportunity here. I listened carefully to the Speaker's remarks and agreed with almost everything she said about this bill. I have enjoyed the leadership of our ranking member, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Cardoza on the other side of the aisle, and others from States that have a high production level of fruits and vegetables. This bill, on a bipartisan basis, recognizes that need, makes investments that are necessary in research, and on a bipartisan, in fact, on a unanimous basis came out of committee that way. But a funny thing happened on the way to House floor, which was that at the last minute, and not from any committee process that has jurisdiction over tax law, $10 billion in tax increases were added. So we are asked to take a bipartisan product that represents an important step forward in many ways for American agriculture and pay $10 billion in ransom. The tragedy of that long-term for American agriculture is that it is pitting 1.5 percent of the population that affords our Nation the safest, cheapest, most abundant food in the world, it is pitting those jobs against American manufacturing jobs. Long-term, the 1.5 percent of the population that represents farm country will lose that arithmetic. This is an unprecedented move to use a farm bill as a vehicle to increase taxes. The taxes that will be due tomorrow that were not due yesterday are coming out of, in many cases, manufacturers who purchase the products that American farmers and livestock producers grow. It is a tax, in many cases, on the farm equipment manufacturers and the agricultural suppliers. Are we so lost in the weeds of this that we don't realize that American farmers are part of a global economy, that they are part of an international, integrated, highly vertical organization that involves international companies like Nestle, like Cadbury, like Food Lion that buy what it is that we grow? Do we think that we are insulated from the impacts of additional taxes on our customers, our suppliers, our equipment manufacturers, that we can sustain that blow? That is the policy problem with this conundrum that we have been handed. But the long-term political problem is the notion of pitting manufacturing jobs in America against agricultural jobs in America. That is not sustainable for American agriculture. That is not good public policy for the American consumer. So we have taken a bill that would have sailed out of the House of Representatives with an overwhelming bipartisan margin and given great momentum to the lethargic Senate that has failed to even have a hearing on the farm bill, we could have put the House on the farm bill, and now it is veto bait. That is the tragedy.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 566) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. I thank my friend for yielding the time. Mr. Chairman, let's take a little status report here. This is the eighth appropriations bill that has moved across this floor, which is commendable, since none have moved across the Senate floor. But it is easier to move legislation when there is no bottom line, when there are no constraints, when you can just put any amount of money into the spending bills. This bill marks the eighth step in the progression towards a $1 trillion fiscal train wreck that is coming this fall because of the inability of the Democratic Congress to adhere to fiscal restraint. There is a $23 billion difference between what the Democratic Congress would fund and where the President's request is, something that has been dismissed in their letter to the President as ``a mere 1 percent.'' Well, only in the fantasy land of Washington is $23 billion pocket change. It is vitally important that we restore fiscal accountability to Washington, and it begins with amendments like this one offered by my friend from Ohio that says let's just hold what we had last year. This bill proposes to spend almost 7 percent more than last year and almost 6 percent above what the President requested. But what's the difference between that 1 percent? You say it is 7 and 6 percent. That is the difference between $2.8 billion and $3.2 billion. The difference between what this Congress would spend and what the President would spend is larger than most States' budgets that meet all of the needs of that State. This is the first step in this bill's process towards restoring the kind of commonsense fiscal accountability that Americans are starving for. And when we get down into the weeds of these numbers, people just cloud up because it is so hard to comprehend that a mere 1 percent translates into tens of billions of dollars. But mark my words, ladies and gentlemen, the fiscal train wreck is coming this fall because of the inability of this Democratic-led House to restrain itself from spending billions more than are necessary to meet the needs of this government. And what that will mean undoubtedly as part of their budget blueprint is higher taxes, taxes that will cripple our economy, taxes that will undo the record low unemployment rate, undo a 14,000 point Dow, undo record homeownership. Mark my words, a trillion-dollar train wreck is coming if you don't adopt amendments like these.