Adam Putnam

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I think the gentleman from Rhode Island must have misspoken when he said we were here to ``go after the workers.'' I want to commend the gentleman from Minnesota for sponsoring this amendment which, to the contrary, seeks to protect American union dues- paying workers. We live in an era of instant information, almost universal access to information. We are in a period, a legislative period on the heels of Sarbanes-Oxley, which brought unprecedented new auditing requirements and penalties for noncompliance for publicly traded companies. We live in a legislative era of McCain-Feingold, which brought unprecedented penalties, accountability, auditing to public office holders who accept campaign contributions to seek elective office, but then have to disclose to a greater detail than ever before, and subject to greater limits than ever before, for the sole purpose of having the public understand who was supporting that particular campaign. So in this era, in this trend of greater openness, greater accountability, easier access for the public to be able to understand how their money is being spent, and who is the money behind individuals, behind candidates, behind corporations, enter the Democratic appropriations bill which guts the ability for America to understand who is behind the money in big labor and how are individual hard-working chemical workers', steelworkers', teachers', manufacturers' dues being spent by those public unions and private unions? Here is an amendment that takes the level of this agency's funding. It doesn't freeze it, it doesn't cut it by single digits. It takes it all the way back to the 2006 level and is a 20 percent cut. My friend and colleague from Minnesota seeks to correct that situation by replacing the money that otherwise would be going to a United Nations organization and puts it to help American workers. American taxpayers understand how American union dues are being spent. This agency has a proven track record. It gets results. This amendment allows it to continue on that path of auditing and getting results so that they can do better than the 4\1/2\ percent audit rate, which was all they were able to muster under the existing funding levels that they had been enjoying. Union members have a right to know how their dollars are being spent. Union Members have a right to know how their dollars are being spent, and clearly the curiosity is there. There is a proven track record of them seeking to know how their dollars are being spent. In fact, there were over 760,000 hits on the OLMS Web site just for that purpose, an average of over 2,100 hits per day for people seeking the information that will not be available at the desired rate and at the desired accuracy if this amendment is not adopted. It is critical that we adopt the Kline amendment so that hard-working men and women across America can see how their hard-earned dollars are being spent. Why, in this era of greater openness, for political candidates, for executives, for publicly traded companies, why in this era of ever more complicated regulations, ever more detailed tax returns, are we letting unions off the hook? There is a trend here. It began on this House floor over great resistance on this side of the aisle, rolled back fundamental privacy, the fundamental right to a secret ballot that hard-working union members had been enjoying, that hard-working Americans had been enjoying when they decided they want to unionize. Here we find ourselves today taking an additional step, and it's wrong. Adopt the Kline amendment.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the landscape of Washington is littered with the broken promises of the Democratic majority. We have heard an awful lot about fiscal discipline, but we just haven't found it yet. This bill increases funding for the Federal Government by almost 9 percent over last year. Very few other household budgets or business budgets or private sector budgets grow at that rate. We heard a lot over the last year, a lot of bold talk that turned into empty rhetoric, about the concept of fiscal discipline. Apparently our definitions of that term differ greatly, because the Democratic budget that these appropriations bills are implementing includes the largest tax increase in American history. But they didn't stop there. They went on to say, despite what we may have said during the campaign, we want a new policy on earmarks. We want a policy on earmarks that prevents the American people from seeing them and that prevents the Members of Congress from having to vote on them until they mysteriously appear in the middle of the night in the conference report. Fortunately, 2 weeks ago this body walked them back from that ill- conceived policy. And today, you can now hold your Member of Congress accountable for each and every one of the votes that they take on earmarks. But they didn't stop there. They also, to make their budget move forward, despite having the largest tax increase in American history, used these reserve funds that are empty. They have a Sticky Note in the bottom of them with an IOU. They use these reserve funds to promise rural America, we will put $20 billion more into the farm bill. Here is our IOU. It hasn't materialized. They told Americans in need, here is an additional pot of billions of dollars to fund SCHIP. It hasn't materialized. They did that on over 20 occasions, these mysterious reserve funds. This bill is just one example of the reckless fiscal policy that the Democratic majority has charted for this country, a 9 percent year over year increase for Treasury, Postal, executive branch, the IRS, all very popular agencies in the American psyche right now. They have promised America the largest tax increase in American history. They have promised the different constituent groups reserve funds, secret slush funds and IOUs, but they have delivered no accomplishment, no substantive policy change, nothing in the first 6 months of their rule. America deserves better.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 520) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I thank the sponsor of this amendment. This is a defining moment, an illustrative debate about priorities for this Nation. To set the stage for this debate, we have to look at the original blueprint for the Nation's spending that the Democratic Congress has produced for the American people. That blueprint sets the priorities for our Nation, and that blueprint includes the second largest tax increase in American history, second only to the tax increase that was proposed the last time the Democrats controlled the Congress. So the revenues that are being counted upon to be spent in these appropriations bills come from increased burdens on the American taxpayer. The other interesting thing about that defining document, that budget of the new Democratic majority, is that it includes provisions that would make Enron accountants blush, because it funds priorities like the farm bill and other major authorization measures and other reforms. It funds those with these IOU accounts called ``reserve funds,'' but there's nothing actually in the reserve funds. So this document raises taxes, spends all that money. Then, that's not enough, so they include these phony reserve funds to spend even more. As we enter the appropriations process to actually get down to the nuts and bolts of spending and allocating those dollars to the various programs, we also see explosive growth in the amount of money that they are spending and, again, to borrow from the accounting model that was Enron, more slush funds, more secret slush funds, stepping away from the important reforms that were passed in the last Congress that shed light on the process whereby Members could direct appropriations. But under the process in the last Congress, it was open to public scrutiny, it was transparent to the press and to the public eye; and a point of order could be brought to this House floor if there was not disclosure and if it were air dropped in the moonlight of a conference. All that's gone. All those reforms have been swept away by the new majority and replaced by a system whereby one person, one individual, will be the sole arbiter of what is or is it not appropriate public spending, relegating the other 434 Members of the House of Representatives to a state about as useful as an appendix. One individual has deemed himself the sole determinant of where hard- earned Federal dollars will be spent, and that will be done at the last possible moment in the earliest possible hour of the wee hours of the morning without the press, without the public, without the taxpayers' involvement. That is not acceptable. Today's debate marks the beginning of an appropriations season where the Republicans will insist on transparency, insist on full disclosure, and insist on maximizing value for America's hard-earned dollars and how they are spent in this Federal Government. It may be $79,000 at a time, as this amendment is; it may be into the millions or the tens of millions or the hundreds of millions. But we will not tolerate having a $2.7 trillion budget rammed down our throats without disclosure, without debate, without consideration.

Mr. PUTNAM. It will not be done without appropriate deliberation, and these Members are here to ensure that every American tax dollar is spent as wisely as humanly possible. We will not accept the largest tax increase in American history without a fight, and the ruination that it will do to this economy. It is important that we review each and every one of these issues, that we consider them thoughtfully, and that we consider each and every one of these amendments that these individually elected Members of both parties have brought to this floor to work through the democratic process. That's how this institution was intended to run. That's how we will insist on its being run, and we will do so in a way that brings credit to this institution and not one that forces hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I think it's time for us to have sort of a status report of how we got here. Two years ago, it was publicly revealed that one of our Members of this House, a gentleman from New Orleans, had an FBI raid on his home and had discovered 90,000 in cash wrapped up in aluminum foil and in Tupperware containers in that freezer. It was also publicly revealed that that same gentleman used National Guard assets that were then being used as part of the rescue and recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina to go to his home and recover something resembling the boxes that were later found in his freezer to be containing $90,000 in cash. Since that time, he continued to serve on the Ways and Means Committee for some period of time, which was the committee that he is alleged to have used to conspire on a continent-wide basis in bribery and racketeering of several African nations to profit himself, his family and bring shame and discredit upon this institution. He later left that committee and was unanimously approved by the Democratic Caucus to go to the Homeland Security Committee, that committee being the committee that has jurisdiction over a number of the assets that he misappropriated in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to retrieve the boxes that resembled the ones that had the cash of $90,000 in the freezer. When it was brought to light that the Republicans would demand a public vote on that Democratic Caucus action, that vote was never called for. He remained on the Small Business Committee until today, several days after the actual indictment. That same individual, for the first time in the history of the Republic, had his congressional office raided by the FBI. Now, in the course of all those events did the House Ethics Committee, now led by Democrats, ever open an investigation into his behavior in this Congress? The answer is no. Now why is that? Because if an FBI investigation, $90,000 in cash, an FBI raid on a congressional office, and misappropriation of National Guard assets isn't enough to merit an ethics investigation in this body then perhaps the majority leader could share with us what is. And he could also explain to us why, if there had been an ethics investigation, it could not have proceeded because the Speaker had not appointed Members to the investigative pool until today. So even if they had been proactive, there would have been no one to look into the allegations that have brought shame and discredit upon the People's House. So it takes a peculiar rhetorical bravado to come to this House floor and say with a straight face that they have been moving forward with these investigations, when for over half of the 109th Congress the Ethics Committee could not function because the Democratic members refused to show up; and in the 110th Congress the ethics investigative pool could not function because no Members had been nominated by the Speaker until today. That undermines this institution; and it is the reason why it requires a very rare motion, the privileged motion that the minority leader is offering today. Now, Mr. Hoyer has offered a suspension bill. Suspension bills are typically used to name post offices. They are typically used to designate National Fishing and Boating Month, National Jewish History Month, National Smoke-Free Awareness Week. That is typically the route that suspension bills are pursued. And suspension means that they enjoy broad, noncontroversial support in this House. So while it is, I hope, broadly supported that we would refer the Jefferson case to Ethics, it seems as though that in this new open and accountable House Chamber that the language of such a suspension that would suspend the rules would have been shared by all the Members. The rare motion that is afforded the Republican leader was available in the public domain for days, which presumably has led to the timing of the suspension vote also being offered today. As we move forward with this I think it's important that we recognize that the real losers here are the constituents in a Louisiana congressional district who have been denied representation by someone who has brought shame and discredit upon this House, potentially, depending on the outcome of a 16-count indictment that could result in 235 years in prison. And I hope that the majority leader in his haste to craft the suspension bill that we will consider today has included in it improvements to the existing law as it relates to Member pensions. Because nothing drives the American taxpayer more crazy than to know that potentially, if the gentleman from Louisiana is convicted and if the gentleman from Louisiana is sentenced to prison, he would still have his family entitled to a pension. That is a watered-down version of what the House Republicans passed last year that would deny a pension to Members who use their office to engage in criminal activity. And in this particular case, the people who would be eligible to continue collecting the pension are in the public domain as having been coconspirators, beneficiaries of the illegal activity. So I hope that in his haste to craft a suspension bill, he would bring the pension issue back up for this body to put the teeth back into it that Republicans put in a year ago and add to that additional language that perhaps the majority leader, Mr. Reid, would find acceptable in the Senate so that we can actually get it to the President's desk so that the American taxpayer doesn't have to foot the bill for convicts, thieves, racketeers and people who engage in bribery by abusing their office. This is a very serious issue for this institution, and it should be treated as such, and we should have the highest possible standard for all Members who enjoy the trust in public service, and that includes the issues that follow all of us, including access to the pension, including enforcing the House rules on earmarks that have been routinely abused, and maintaining all of the other rules that we have passed and taken a victory lap for allegedly making this the most open and honest and accountable place. And yet when the rubber meets the road, the path chosen is to airdrop in earmarks, cover up misbehavior on the House floor in terms of threats and intimidation, and unanimously affirm someone who is now under a multi-page indictment, unanimously affirm that person to have a position on the Homeland Security Committee. I urge this body to endorse, support and vote for the Republican leader's motion that will begin the process of restoring the dignity and honor and respect that this institution deserves.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, I missed recorded votes due to familial obligations. Please let the record show that had I been here, I would have voted the following way: Roll No. 386--``yea;'' roll No. 387--``yea;'' roll No. 388--``yea;'' roll No. 389--``yea;'' roll No. 390--``yea;'' roll No. 391--``yea;'' roll No. 392--``yea;'' roll No. 393--``yea;'' roll No. 394--``yea;'' roll No. 395--``yea;'' roll No. 396--``nay;'' roll No. 397--``yea;'' roll No. 398--``yea;'' roll No. 399--``yea;'' roll No. 400--``yea;'' roll No. 401--``yea;'' roll No. 402--``nay.''

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the young ranking member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, unlike the majority leader, protocol does not allow me unlimited time to rebut his numerous inaccuracies, but let me lay out this fact first: The Democratic budget that we will vote on this evening raises taxes. And if you don't believe it, just wait until your tax bill comes due in a couple of years when you are asked to pay more then than you are today. And you will be asked to pay the largest tax increase in American history. The marriage penalty will be back. The death tax, back. The bracket creep, back. Small businesses paying more than Fortune 100 companies. It will crimp the economy that is robust and strong and creating a record Dow as we speak. The majority leader said national security is their highest priority. If it is your highest and first priority, why are we now in May with troops running out of funds, running out of resources, and a President begging for a supplemental for men and women who are in harm's way, if national security is your highest priority? If you care to honor the veterans, then in addition to paying for veterans health care, in addition to dealing with veterans retirement, why are you not similarly honoring those veterans by reforming entitlements, so that when those young veterans come back, that every think tank in this town is in agreement that Social Security and Medicare will be bankrupt before those young veterans are eligible to receive those promised benefits, and you do nothing about it. Why don't you honor those young veterans, why don't you honor those future generations, those first year teachers, this spring's graduates from high schools and colleges, why don't you honor them by dealing with the crisis that our country faces in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid consuming the Federal budget? It already makes up over half of Federal expenditures. This budget raises taxes, skyrockets the spending and does nothing to deal with the generational crisis we face in entitlements. I urge you to defeat this irresponsible document.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his leadership. I was struck by something that the subcommittee chairman said during the debate on the last amendment regarding missile defense, which is the concession that the threat from attacks by missile is real. I would submit that it is real, it is significant, and it is growing; and the notion that we would scale back this Nation's preparedness from rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran and the ever-mounting potential threat coming from China, all three of whom have tested ballistic missiles in the last year, is folly, it is reckless, and it puts U.S. interests and U.S. allies gravely at risk. It is inarguable that the risk from a missile attack is not greater today than it has ever been from the most dangerous and least reliable sources, those who are willing to trade in the terrorist black market of technology and weapons of mass destruction, those who have declared Israel's need to be wiped off the face of the Earth and those who have declared death to America. We cannot lose sight of this important, over-the-horizon danger by cutting back on funds, researching and developing an adequate missile defense for our country and our allies. Madam Chairman, I submit to you that there is a vital difference between the direction that the majority and the minority would take U.S. defense policy in this environment. We cannot cut back on our missile defenses in this country and in this environment.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 393) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PUTNAM

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support a very important amendment to H.R. 1429, and I want to commend Mr. Kildee, Mr. Miller, Mr. McKeon, and the others who have worked so hard on this important bill. Head Start is a tremendously important program in the early childhood education continuum, but it is also desperately in need of reforms. As we all know, the purpose of Head Start is to help disadvantaged children be better prepared to enter school. But we are doing those children an enormous disservice and squandering taxpayer dollars if we do not hold the providers of Head Start services to a higher level of accountability. The existing language in 1429 allows for automatic 5- year renewal of applications, automatic renewal, if they simply meet minimum standards to the satisfaction of the review panel. Providers that don't meet the standards must enter into open competition for acceptance of their applications. I would respectfully submit this does not go far enough. For the sake of ensuring the programs are performing better than minimal or better than good enough and as a safeguard for the taxpayers who foot the bill, I believe we should require that all Head Start providers face open competition. Such competition will encourage a higher level of performance and serve as a check on unscrupulous practices. Mr. Chairman, I am very familiar, unfortunately, with what can happen when a provider is allowed to skate through without the discipline that comes from competition. In my own district, the Polk County Opportunity Council became a poster child for mismanagement and abuse since its dealings first became public in 2003, which actually had followed a probationary status just several years before. Years of investigation have revealed breath-taking examples of malfeasance and mendacity. There has been everything from sweetheart deals involving the purchase of office equipment to claims for nonexistent hurricane damages, essentially amounting to insurance fraud. At one point the PCOC even fabricated a false ``certificate of compliance'' from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which it tried to use to short-circuit other investigations of its misdealings. It took 3 years, 3 years, to defund that agency, and the entire appeals process along the way, and this only applies to the Head Start program, the entire appeals process was paid for not by the agency, not by the grantee, but by the taxpayers. The taxpayers paid the bill for them to appeal mismanaging the taxpayers' dollars. Competition, I believe, an open competition, would go a long way towards solving that problem. The effect of these abuses not only squandered taxpayer dollars, but it diverted resources from some of the neediest and most deserving members of our community. That is an outrage. We must expect better and we must do better. We cannot allow these types of abuses to become the norm. We should not maintain a system that simply continues the status quo. Let's expect providers of Head Start programs to compete with other potential providers, which, unlike during the creation of Head Start, today there are a number of State and local governments and private entities that can provide that service. Then we will truly be giving these needy children the head start they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished ranking member from California.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, the amendment provides for competition among agencies that are given millions of dollars to manage programs for our neediest children. And unlike during the creation of the Head Start program, today across America there are thousands of potential providers. School boards are now in the early childhood business. United Way is now in the early childhood business. Local communities are now in the early childhood business, providing tremendous educational opportunities for our neediest young people before they enter kindergarten. We want them to enter kindergarten ready to learn, and we want to guarantee that the grantees that are managing these precious Head Start dollars are running an adequate, professional, thoughtful program and being good stewards of the people's money. By providing for recompetition every 5 years, we are guaranteeing, as my ranking member friend from California said, that they understand that it is not their birthright to continue that. I urge my friends to support this amendment.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, our troops in combat deserve to be sent the resources and reinforcements that they need to be successful in their mission in Iraq, without strings and without delay. Putting in place an inflexible timeline that culminates with a date certain time for withdrawal micromanages our commanders in the field and undermines the efforts of our troops on the ground. The Washington Post describes the Democrat plan as ``an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself.'' The L.A. Times called for the bill to be vetoed saying, ``It's absurd to try and micromanage the conflict, and the evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.'' I urge my colleagues to stand up for our troops. Our troops deserve a clean bill, not one bulging with add-ons and political statements.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield my time to my good friend from Georgia, the sponsor of the amendment, Mr. Price.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, today's debate on shareholder votes highlights differing views on executive compensation. It is important to note that shareholders already have the power to propose votes on executive compensation. In fact, during the 2007 proxy season, 64 corporations will hold votes on whether to provide shareholders nonbinding votes on executive pay. As my friend from Georgia referenced, AFLAC has already voluntarily agreed to include an advisory vote on executive compensation on its 2007 proxy statement, an example of market forces and shareholder views at work. These examples reflect boards' responsiveness to improving corporate governance and holding executives accountable to fulfill their duty of increasing shareholder value by growing profits and creating jobs. However, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that boards of directors' pay for CEOs is disconnected from their performance. I would argue that if you believe that, then you should support this amendment that focuses on performance and encourages greater accountability. The amendment I offer today brings attention to what is known as nonqualified, deferred compensation. It allows the issuers to be exempt from the nonbinding shareholder vote on executive pay if the issuer provides the majority of the executive's compensation in the form of that nonqualified deferred compensation. And the reason for that is that nonqualified deferred compensation is subject to forfeiture. Unlike worker or union pension plans, it is contingent compensation. In other words, it is based on the performance of the company, the CEOs, and the executives. Those that have poor performance forfeit some of their compensation. My amendment gets to the heart of shareholder frustration, which is that if a CEO fails to fulfill their fiduciary duties, then they should be held accountable. Let me give you an example. Recently, a CEO of a major corporation announced that he would be leaving his post at the end of the year. The board of directors of that company decided not to give a large incentive bonus to that CEO because the company reported a 28 percent decrease in their profit for the last quarter of the year. While the CEO claimed that he deserved a $7.65 million bonus, the board reached an agreement and the CEO will receive less than half of what he thought he was entitled to. The board exercised discretion based on performance, holding executives accountable. Mr. Speaker, this amendment aligns management interest with shareholder interest, enhancing shareholder value and equity in the company. Nonqualified deferred compensation packages help to drive financial performance, meet growth targets, and ensure the retention of good performing executives. Simply put, if the executive does not perform and the company suffers, then the compensation should reflect as much. I would also like to point out that in 2004 both Democrats and Republicans created rules that determine when it is appropriate to defer certain types of compensation. It is unnecessary for shareholders to have a nonbinding vote if there is no constructive receipt of that compensation. They are voting on something that may or may not actually be paid out to poorly performing CEOs. We should be encouraging this type of performance-based compensation, not second-guessing. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to adopt this amendment.

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

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, looking beyond all the rhetoric for a moment, we have a responsibility here as the elected stewards of the people's treasury to deliver a budget that honors our values and keeps our promises--and the proposal put together by my good friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Ryan, does exactly that. Sadly, the Democrat majority has squandered its first opportunity in over a decade to set our fiscal priorities. Despite the pledges of fiscal responsibility that echoed through this chamber at the start of this Congress, it did not take long for the heirs of tax-and-spend liberalism to return to their roots. Just a few weeks into the new Congress, the majority took a victory lap for passing an omnibus spending bill that contained about $500 million in hidden earmarks. And then last week, they patted themselves on the back for loading up an emergency troop funding bill with enough pork barrel projects to make Donald Trump blush. And if it was not enough to use our young men and women in combat as oxen to carry that wagon load of pork across the President's desk, this budget will saddle their generation with a greater tax burden to bear and unbearable choices to make. The Democrat budget takes the tax hammer to 115 million Americans-- from married couples and families with children to senior citizens and small business owners. We have got millions of Floridians filing their 2006 tax returns right now--these are folks still in need of significant property tax relief. And I am going to head down there soon and let them know that they better start getting their ducks in a row because not too long from now, the new Democrat Congress will slam them with an average tax increase of $3,039. The proposal put together by Mr. Ryan protects caps gains and dividend tax relief, maintains the new, low 10-percent tax bracket, takes any marriage penalty rollback off the table, and keeps the death tax in the ground--where it belongs. In addition, Mr. Ryan's proposal exerts discipline on the government spending machine--so we can have a ba1anced budget and a smaller, smarter, more efficient government that can deliver much-needed reforms on the fly. And look, you can support the Democrat budget and spend all the taxpayer money you want on new programs, but if the generational crisis of runaway entitlement spending that looms over the horizon is not sufficiently addressed, we will not be able to have any of them--not a one. The Congressional Budget Office has told us that if we do not implement significant entitlement reforms, then our shared goal of balancing the budget in the next 5 years is nothing more than a pipe dream. If we wish to continue keeping the promises our government has made, but do not act soon, then we will have a choice to make: either raise taxes every year until they are nearly 60 percent higher than they are today or eliminate every single government program except Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security by 2045. This is a coming crisis, and appallingly, it is one born of our indecision. That's why I applaud Mr. Ryan for putting together a proposal that reforms our largest and least sustainable entitlement programs, achieving $279 billion in savings over 5 years. That is a far cry from the budget resolution Democrats are putting forward today, which does not make a single courageous choice--it is an incubator of gimmicks and schemes designed to pass the buck to future Congresses and the bucket to tomorrow's taxpayers. There is no fiscal responsibility to be found in a budget that makes our children foot the bill for our inability to make tough choices. The sound fiscal blueprint laid out by Mr. Ryan shows that we can have a budget that holds us accountable for the choices that need to be made to ensure lasting prosperity for future generations.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 236) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I thank my former colleagues on the Rules Committee for bringing to the floor the second open rule of the year. I think that it yields better policy when all of us work together and hash things out on the floor and can move forward with something that is productive for the entire Nation. The virtues of this legislation are well known to Members on both sides of the aisle. The bill brings much needed clarity and oversight to the insourcing process. More importantly, it applies a post-9/11 mindset to a pre-9/11 infrastructure. It was about a year ago at this time that Dubai Ports World's acquisition of a stake in our ports became a very hot topic around America. When we discovered the DP World transaction, we reacted as strongly as we did not only because of the potential imminent threat being posed to our security, but because the deal was so far along in the process before it came to light. So we acted in the last Congress to pass a substantially similar bill to what we are considering today, giving CFIUS the authority necessary to review legitimate foreign transactions. The Republican bill considered last year passed the House unanimously, again, a bipartisan product, on an issue important both to national security and the national economy. Here we are a year later with the benefit of hindsight, but our charge remains the same, to establish that balance between the momentum of the global market and the needs of our national and homeland security. Our ports remain an important example of why this legislation, which involves all foreign transactions, is so critical. The worldwide shipping industry sends to our shores over 9 million shipping containers each year. These containers are transported on megaships that can deliver 3,000 containers at a time. And at the same time our ports are critical to keeping our economy competitive in a global marketplace. These 9 million containers account for a whopping 95 percent of our imports by weight, and 75 percent by value. Keeping foreign transactions secure is our first priority, and this legislation is a very important start because we must put in place an interagency review process that is comprehensive without being counterproductive. This bill should not be the launching point for legislative micromanagement of foreign transactions. Unnecessary bureaucracy will certainly deter foreign companies from investing their resources here, which is precisely what we want to be, a magnet for investment from around the world. And there is a danger of politicizing the foreign investment process. There is clearly a difference between a transaction that runs contrary to an individual's parochial priorities as opposed to one that conflicts with this body's national priorities. And we must, again, be careful not to send the wrong message to the world's investors that America is closed for business. Our citizens, also, should be aware that our national security is not for sale. This bill should become law without delay. It strengthens our national security, while recognizing our role, America's role, in a global market. If we are diligent in seeing these reforms through, we can have both safer transactions and a stronger economy. I thank all of the authors and the sponsors of the bill and the work that has gone into this.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. While this resolution may be nonbinding, we will all be bound by its consequences: the immediate and long-lasting consequences, those here and in the combat zone. Democrats continue to put forward an inherently contradictory message with dire consequences, on one hand offering rhetorical support for the troops and on the other, advancing a slow-bleed strategy that methodically constricts those troops' ability to succeed. From the testimonials we have heard, it is clear our troops believe their mission is winnable. And the message they are routinely delivering to us could not be more clear. They want a chance to get the job done. Ladies and gentlemen, our troops are not speaking off of a slickly produced focus group-tested set of talking points. They are vocalizing the overwhelming sentiments that exist on the front lines. We do a disservice to the very troops we claim to support when we advance a slow-bleed strategy that cuts off their lifeline of support. We don't support them when we choke off the funding they need to succeed. We don't support them when we erect political roadblocks designed to deny them the equipment that they need to carry out their mission. We don't support them when we tie their hands behind their back. And we certainly don't support our troops when we attach strings to the funding needed to ensure that when they need help, it is on the way. Yesterday the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee unveiled this dangerous slow-bleed doctrine on a Web site, movecongress.org, that is directly affiliated with some of the most extreme elements of the antiwar left. This is a political machine designed to elect and defeat politicians by using our troops as pawns, and now they seek to deprive those same troops of the resources they need to succeed in their mission. According to news reports, these groups are prepared to spend $8.5 million on a national ad campaign to target lawmakers who did not adhere to their extremist, defeatist views. This resolution is not an earnest expression of congressional sentiment. It is phase one of the far left's plan to elect more of their own. And all of this is for what? To send a message or settle a score with our Commander in Chief? To raise campaign cash? It turns out our worse fears are true; that this resolution is, in fact, a first, dangerous step to cutting off the funds our troops so desperately need. The remarks of the Defense Appropriations chairman, the remarks of the Speaker with major national reporters lending support to the slow-bleed doctrine; and next week senior House leaders will convene to map out their strategy for maximizing their ability to defund the troops while minimizing the political fallout. Before you cast your vote today, you should see this resolution for what it is: phase one of a political campaign to strip our troops of the funds they need. Right now, in some cave in Iraq or Afghanistan, information is being located on a hard drive that talks about a plan for a new attack in America. Right now, somewhere in the Middle East, teenage boys are being groomed to be human bombs to further the aims of these Islamic extremists. Right now, money is being transferred across a global finance network to fund the attacks here on our soil or on other allies' soil who believe in the types of freedom and open society we enjoy, in Madrid, in London, in Hamburg, in New York, in Washington. Regardless of how many Republicans cross the aisle and vote with the Democrats or how many Democrats cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans, tomorrow morning the terrorists will still wake up with hate on their hearts, plotting the next scheme to bring down our economy, to bring down our system of government, to bring down the lives of innocents. As recently as last August, as if we didn't learn from the events of 9/11, as recently as last August, there was still an attempt to blow up 10 more airliners using baby food as the means for bringing on the explosive device. Resolutions like this do nothing to stop that type of hate. They only send the wrong signals to the men and women on the front lines for all of us.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. I thank my friend from Florida for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this resolution because, unfortunately, it is anything but resolute. In one legislative breath it offers support for our troops, but then expresses disdain for the mission they have been asked to carry out. And then, I must admit I am surprised, after all the tough talk we heard from the other side, this is a rather toothless 97 words. The resolution does nothing to help win the war, but it doesn't do anything to help stop it either, which allows the majority to offer its support and withdraw it too. Now, the majority has surely studied its constitutional law, and knows that the most direct way that it can affect current strategy is to cut off the funds necessary for winning this war. So why are we not having this week a real vote, a real up-or-down vote on funding our men and women in harm's way? Actually, the Congress has had one up-or-down vote, it was up only, when the Senate unanimously confirmed General David Petraeus as our commanding officer in Iraq. General Petraeus, who took over just last Saturday, literally wrote the book for the Army on counterinsurgency strategies. And now, after unanimous Senate approval and just days into his command, the House is prepared to pull the rug out from under him. If that is not a mixed message, then what is it, Mr. Speaker? Indeed, it is a shame that the majority has brought to the floor such a narrow, nonbinding resolution that misses the bigger picture, because this is so much larger than what is going on in any given neighborhood in Baghdad. It is easy enough to go back and list all the disappointments we have had in Iraq; it is easy enough to wring our hands about any one particular tactic. But it is like focusing on one jungle, on one atoll on the march to Tokyo over 60 years ago. The very nature of our enemy requires us to look at the bigger picture. The harsh reality we have encountered in 5\1/2\ years since militants attacked us on American soil is that its intricate web of terror is utterly global. Today, al Qaeda operates in over 60 countries, with members in the hundreds and supporters in the hundreds of thousands and perhaps even millions. This is the case even after the tangible successes that we have had. More than three-quarters of al Qaeda's known pre-9/11 leaders have been captured or killed, more than 4,000 suspected al Qaeda members arrested, and more than $140 million of its assets seized from over 1,400 different bank accounts worldwide. And after having accomplished all that, the majority would have us consider a resolution that puts us one day closer to handing militant Islamists a safe haven the size of California. And when ideological militants achieve their objectives, history tells us that they don't settle, that they only attempt to expand their reach even further. And that means following us home. The consequences of failure in Iraq read like a far-fetched war game, but I assure you they are quite real: the inevitable incursion of Iranian and Syrian combatants into the country, the threat to peaceful Arab states, and the further emboldening of Hamas and Hezbollah. So we have arrived at one of those muddy historical crossroads. Will we continue to take the fight to the enemy, or will we fall back and hope that the enemy does not follow us home? That question is one that we must continue to ask ourselves, even if it is much larger than the narrow scope of this resolution, this resolution that was born of what has become an overly politicized debate. Time was, politics stopped at the water's edge; but no longer, it seems. A discussion of this nature should be about more than political labels and single tactical issues. It should be about the consequences for future generations. The history of free peoples divides itself as neatly as it can into generations for a reason: because it aspires to celebrate the contributions made by that group of people who consciously join together to vanquish a common enemy. If we do not join together now to defeat this insidious foe, then it will almost certainly fall to our posterity do so. And they will have a much larger concern than any one troop deployment in any one city. They will be tasked with rebuilding the lasting damage that was done to America's resolve this week. They will look back upon this discussion and seek to understand what we were thinking when, with just 97 words, we considered shrinking from this critical moment. The poet Robert Frost once wrote that, ``The best way out is always through.'' We doggedly seek the way through. Success in Iraq, security for our allies, and everlasting victory for freedom. This week's discussion should be about the way through, not the way back