Kevin Brady

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. At the end of the day, the Republican budget developed by our Budget chairman, Paul Ryan, is a jobs bill. We know America faces an unemployment crisis today greater than at any time during the Depression. We know roughly 23 million Americans can't even find a full-time job. We know that while government spending has rebounded and how other factors have rebounded in this economy, what we know is that jobs haven't rebounded. In fact, there are fewer jobs in America today than when this President took his oath of office. So we're going to talk about this budget and its impact on America's economy. The truth of the matter is, if you like the way our economy is going, if you think this is the best we can do, stick with the President's budget and stick with the Democrats' budget. It stays the course. But if you think we can do better for American hardworking taxpayers and jobseekers, there is a choice of two futures. Mr. Chairman, it's a privilege to serve as the vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, the lead Republican for the House and Senate. I'd like to acknowledge the contributions that my fellow House Republicans, such as Dr. Burgess, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Amash, and Mr. Mulvaney make as members of the Joint Economic Committee. We are here as a matter of law. Established in 1946 as the congressional counterpart to the President's Council of Economic Advisers, the Joint Economic Committee has provided timely insight on economic issues to the Congress for more than half a century. We helped lay the intellectual groundwork for the Kennedy tax cut in 1964, and its 1980 report plugging in the supply side established the credibility of supply-side economics and paved the way for the Reagan tax cuts in 1981. The Joint Economic Committee examines economic developments and evaluates economic ramifications of policies being considered by the Congress, such as this budget, and work by the JEC Republicans received national attention during the debate over President Obama's plan to nationalize health care in the 111th Congress. Since the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, the Joint Economic Committee has performed an important function in this, the annual budget process. Advising Members of Congress on the potential economic impact of the policies set forth in the President's budget and the budget resolution we consider today, it's for this purpose we come to the House floor this evening. Well, let's begin our assessment of the House budget by discussing some very key economic principles. Real growth in the economy, which is the foundation for creating jobs along Main Street for hardworking Americans, comes from the private sector and not from government. The Joint Economic Committee examined for the last 40 years the relationship between changes in government spending and jobs along Main Street and private payroll employment. And what's clear is that there is not a tight relationship; there's an inverse relationship. As Federal Government spending grows, jobs along Main Street shrink. Likewise, when the Federal Government takes a smaller share of resources from Main Street, more hardworking taxpayers find jobs as payroll employment increases. And this chart shows--the blue being Federal Government spending and the red being jobs along Main Street-- every time Washington grows, Main Street shrinks. My colleagues across the aisle argue that Federal spending should increase when private job growth plummets, but even during periods of sustained increases in Federal spending and investments, jobs along Main Street have remained low or negative. And put simply, Federal spending doesn't create jobs. Only when Federal spending subsides do jobs grow. Next, there's a very close economic relationship, though, between what we call private nonresidential fixed investment growth. What that means is, when businesses invest in building and software equipment technology, jobs along Main Street grow. This chart shows, again, since 1971, in blue the private investment, businesses software, equipment, and building; in red, job growth along Main Street. And it shows almost a nearly identical correlation. So, in the end, growing jobs in America depends upon more investment in America, not Federal Government spending, more investment that creates those jobs. In spite of that evidence, 40 years of proven evidence, the White House, President Obama, and Congressional Democrats have only pushed us deeper and deeper into debt. We have to remind ourselves that both the debt we hold to the public and our gross Federal debt are reaching new post-war levels. They've never been this high since World War II. Publicly held Federal debt roughly doubled to nearly 70 percent of the size of our economy in just the 4 years leading up to 2011. The same can be said of the gross Federal debt, again, reaching 100 percent of our economy--dangerous levels: dangerous levels to the economy, dangerous levels to our credit rating, dangerous levels to our investment. According to the President's latest budget estimates, this gross debt isn't expected to go under 100 percent for years and years. In fact, he proposes a budget that never balances. The President proposes a budget that takes us deeper and deeper and deeper into debt and hangs an anchor around America's economy. There is a better solution, and the model is right in front of us. All you have to do is compare President Obama's spending-driven approach to the economy and look at the last serious recession, that which President Reagan had to tackle. Despite bailouts and Cash for Clunkers and auto bailouts and stimulus and deficit-spending in the trillions of dollars, you can tell this recovery continues to struggle. A good comparison is the Reagan recovery because that recovery was fueled by Main Street, by private investment and free enterprise, just the opposite of President Obama and congressional Democrats. The White House's current focus on massive increases in Federal spending, expanding government beyond imaginable levels to encourage growth has been a failure. Meanwhile, the smaller government, free- market approach utilized by the Reagan administration proved to be much more successful. Looking at the comparisons between the two, at this same point in the recession, President Reagan's increase in jobs was up almost 10 percent; President Obama's is less than a third of that. The unemployment rate had dropped 3.5 percent at this point in the recovery under President Reagan. It's less than half of that under President Obama. In average growth, how did the economy grow under the free-market, less-spending approach of President Reagan? It grew by 6 percent. President Obama's record is about a third of that. These policies by this President and this Democrat Congress of the past 2 years, prior to Republican control, has failed. The point of the matter is government needs to get out of the way. We need to cut government spending. We need to hold the line and reform our terrible tax system. We need to free our small businesses from the oppressive level of regulation coming out of Washington. Mr. Chairman, in a moment I'm going to talk about the tax reality. We're going to talk about how the current budget that we've living with today inflates our prices and damages real business. But at this time, I have a number of key speakers from the Joint Economic Committee in our conference that I want to get to. So at this point I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), one of the key new members of the Joint Economic Committee who understands you can't tax your way back to a strong economy or to a balanced budget.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. President Obama made two key promises to the American public. The first was that he would reduce the deficit by half in his first term of office. The second is that he would fix this broken economy in 3 years. Let's take a close look at those promises, looking first at the economy. This is hard to believe--and I hope those at home are sitting down--but after all of the bailouts, after all the stimulus, after all the Cash for Clunkers, the deficit spending, the housing bailout, everything the President wished for and got in increased spending, we have fewer Americans working today than when this President took office. Think about it: there are fewer Americans working after all the President's economic policies have gone full bore. It's failed the American public in such a way that there are fewer people working today than when this President took the oath of office. Look at the stimulus. This chart shows he promised the American public if you'll just borrow and spend nearly a trillion dollars of interest, our economy will recover. In fact, he promised right now our unemployment rate would be around 6 percent. It's far above that at nearly 8\1/2\ percent. But that doesn't tell the whole picture because so many Americans have given up hope and so many Americans don't even look for a job anymore. They've just dropped out. We have the fewest people in the workforce in almost three decades. They've just given up that much. Our unemployment rate is really nearly 16 percent. It's a little above it, as a matter of fact. This is an unemployment crisis. The President's policies--no question, he inherited a poor economy, to say the least. His policies have failed. He's made it worse for about 23 million Americans who can't even find a full-time job these days. If you want more of the same, stick with the President's budget, stick with the Democrats' budget. They deliver more of the same in an economy that is struggling like it hasn't since the Depression, and millions of Americans just can't find work no matter how hard they try. The President promised he would reduce the deficit and cut it in half in his first term. He should have been able to do that. Instead, he has increased it by almost half. This is the fourth trillion-dollar deficit in a row. He proposes to spend so that we're the largest government in American history, larger even than World War II when they dropped everything to win the war. He wants a government bigger than that and deficits that go as far as the eye can see. Republicans believe we ought to have a choice of futures. When you look at the debt that's being piled on America in the future, let me put that in real terms. We have two young boys, and one is in third grade and one is in seventh. They make our family a joy. I think about what all this means to them, and you may be thinking about it for your kids or your grandkids. All that red ink this President has piled up and the future of America with this debt, today a baby born in America, their fair share of the debt is about $47,000. A baby born today owes Uncle Sam a new Lexus. If we don't change our ways by the time they're 13, they'll owe Uncle Sam a second Lexus. By the time they're 22 when they've finished college and they're getting ready to start their life, they'll owe Uncle Sam a third Lexus. The good news is young people don't actually buy luxury sedans for the Federal Government, but they pay the price another way. For all that debt, they pay the price in a sluggish economy, in higher taxes, in higher interest rates. So that young person starting their life after all that schooling and pursuing their dreams in America, they'll have a harder time finding jobs--there will be fewer of them--and they'll keep less in their paycheck as a result of this. That's the future if we stay the course with this President and Democrats in Congress. Republicans believe there is a better future for America. The Republican budget does just that. It restores a healthy economy for America in a commonsense way. It gets our financial house in order. It starts limiting this out-of-control spending. It starts to take away all the waste and abuse, sunsetting obsolete Agencies, stopping this wasteful spending from stem to stern in the Federal budget. It starts to tighten the Federal Government's belt and budget. In addition to putting our financial house in order, it shrinks the size of government. It makes it affordable again for America. Not only do we balance the budget; the goal of the Republican budget is to pay off our debt. Think about it: our goal is not to just break even again. It's to start to whittle down and pay off those huge amounts of debt that we owe to so many in this world. It tackles important issues like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It preserves them for every generation once and for all. Last year, America had to borrow $142 billion from China and other foreign investors just to pay Social Security for our seniors. We know Medicare goes bankrupt in 12 years unless we act. If we don't act today, Medicare ends itself as we know it. It ends itself. Republicans have a commonsense proposal to preserve those important programs, to make them sustainable for every generation; and we do it without raising taxes. We know you can't take more from people and hope to grow the economy. We know that Washington ought to tighten its belt before we ask hardworking taxpayers to tighten theirs. We know that taxing professionals and small businesses, taxing our local energy companies who manufacture here in the United States, we know that taxing companies that are creating jobs in America is the wrong way to go. We're going to offer, and are offering, not just a choice of two futures; we're offering some hope to a country that despairs it will ever see a balanced budget again. We're offering hope to a country that right now has a second-rate economy and that some parts of the world make fun of, frankly. We're going to offer hope to businesses who want to compete again both in their community and around the world because today what they tell us is they're not adding jobs. With this debt hanging over us, with all the talk of new taxes and new regulation, they're not adding those jobs. Why would they? The Republican budget makes sure that we don't balance our budget on the backs of America's small businesses. We know the problem isn't that government doesn't take more of what you earn; the problem is that the Federal Government spends too much. We offer a Path to Prosperity to America. It's the only responsible budget that will be offered to this debate. I wish I could say the Senate will take it up; but for 3 years, they've refused to give a budget to the American people. We're going to change the trajectory of America, we're going to change the future of America, and we're going to give hope back by passing the Republican budget. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), who serves on an important Small Business Committee and who is a nurse and understands our health care challenges in America.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a key member of the Joint Economic Committee and of the Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the most knowledgeable on health care, a physician who has delivered more than 3,000 babies, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield the gentleman from South Carolina an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Chairman, many Members of Congress didn't have the time or the choice to read this new health care law before it became law. After it was passed, I asked our economists of the Joint Economic Committee--they spent 4 months going through every page and provision of this new law--to show the American public just what this new health care takeover looked like. They went through all 2,300 pages of the bill, and this is what the new health care law in America looks like--well, actually, not completely. We could only fit one-third of all that new bureaucracy on one page. Here are the physicians, over in that corner are the patients, and in between are 159 new Federal agencies and bureaucrats in between you and your doctor. We can do better for the American public than this horrible health care law, and we're doing that today. Today, we're going to take on--this chart, the way it works, everything in dark blue is a new expansion of government; everything in orange, potential rationing boards; everything in green is $1 trillion of new tax increases or slashing cuts to Medicare. All the light blue provisions deal with expansion of government into the free market. But today, we're going to act. We're not going to wait. We're going to act to repeal one of the key rationing boards. This Independent Payment Advisory Board, you've heard today, 15 unelected bureaucrats, will make life-or-death decisions about treatment in the future. My mom is one of those Medicare seniors who I have no doubt, if this is not repealed, will someday see her treatments limited by these unelected bureaucrats. Our Democratic friends say, We're not rationing, because the government will not actually say ``no'' to a senior who needs care. They just won't reimburse the doctor or the local hospital or the local hospice care to take care of them. I don't know what you call that, but I call that rationing.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I thank the chairman. I will be very brief. This board has unlimited power to slash even more than that, and Congress is virtually powerless to stop it. This is America. We don't allow these bureaucrats to make these life- or-death decisions. Republicans in this House are going to repeal this dangerous bureaucracy, and we are, when we get a chance, replacing it with affordable health care for America.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Greater Orange Area Chamber of Commerce. Tonight, this vibrant Chamber will be celebrating its 125th anniversary. This great advocate for small business began back in 1887 as a citizens committee and then became the city's Board of Trade just before the turn of the 20th century. The city of Orange was born the same year Texas won its Independence, but is history goes much further back. The area first settled around 1600 by the Atakapas tribe is now a shining jewel in the Golden Triangle's crown. Following up on Orange's proud heritage of ship building for America's military, it was this Chamber that saw the future of petrochemicals and brought jobs to the area just as our soldiers, sailors and marines were returning from World War II. This Chamber has a long history of bringing civic leaders and business leaders together to make Orange a better place to live and work. The community, led by a vibrant Chamber of Commerce, has taken on the tough tasks from building better roads, a first rate port, strong local schools and a growing college. Named for its Orange groves, the modern Orange boasts its very own Shangri-La and the world class Lutcher Theater as well as the renowned Stark Museum of Art. This is a community that doesn't shy away from a challenge. Hurricanes Rita and Ike only hardened the resolve of this Golden Triangle treasure and I expect more great things from Orange in the next 125 years as this community continues to grow, while maintaining its signature small town charm mixed with world-class culture. Today, I honor all those who have made this Chamber great and look forward to meeting those who will lead it in the future.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I strongly support the passage of this bill. When China repeatedly undermines the free market by subsidizing its exports to the United States, we can't just give them a pass, especially when the businesses China subsidizes are often government- owned businesses that compete unfairly against our American companies and workers. If you don't believe the American Government should pick winners and losers in the marketplace, you certainly don't support the Chinese Government doing the same. There is an important distinction between the duties that seek to protect companies that are afraid to compete in the marketplace--those I oppose--and in this case duties assessed against those who try to distort the free market through unfair government subsidies. It's a distinction between the price of legal software and illegal software. We would shoot ourselves in the foot if we denied this important tool to protect the free market for American workers. It's important, as Chairman Camp noted today, that this legislation is WTO consistent and fully within America's rights when dealing with China and other nonmarket economies. It's also important that this bill addresses the double-remedies laws in the right way to ensure that America applies these laws in accordance with our WTO obligations. In conclusion, this legislation ensures the freedom of U.S. companies and workers to compete in a market that is not distorted by the Chinese Government. It restores free market principles by allowing us to address China's unfair subsidies. It has no different impact on consumers than enforcing our intellectual property laws. We owe it to America's job creators and our workers to make sure we have the tools at our disposal to offset such unfair trade practices and allow the free market to work properly. That's why I urge strong support for this vital legislation.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been defeated so many times on the House floor, it's like one of those bad ``American Idol'' tryouts. And there is good reason for it. It is as Chairman Hastings said. In the 1990s, we wanted to encourage more American-made energy, not importing it from the Middle East. So we encouraged companies to explore in deepwater. They did. American companies invested hundreds of millions of dollars in leases paid to the American Government in new investment, in new equipment, and it worked. They found oil and gas. They pumped it, and they paid billions of dollars in revenue in royalties to us based on how much they pumped. The more they pumped, the more they paid to the American taxpayer. This outraged our Democrat friends. They've tried to break those American contracts, force the government to go back on its word. Four times the courts have said, including the Supreme Court, No, the American Government's word means something. Today, they want to break that word on the House floor, extort our American companies into breaking those contracts. We're going to say no. The American Government's contract and the words mean something, and we're going to create the jobs that come from American-made energy.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate the point we've been making. The goal of this amendment is not simply to break America's contract, it's really to stop American companies from investing here in America, and creating jobs from clean natural gas, from oil, from traditional energy that fuels so much of America's economy, to make sure that we are reliant on our energy, not on the Middle East or Venezuela. And so the goal of this amendment, the reason it has been killed so many times, is it works against America's energy interests. It works against American energy jobs, and it breaks the rule of law. America is not a banana republic. Our contracts mean something, and we're going to uphold them.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, America is at its best when we're not hypocritical and when we don't shoot ourselves in the foot. This Markey amendment does both. We insist that China play by the rules. In fact, they've been hoarding their raw materials and holding them back from export to America, which harms American companies. We just won an important ruling around the world that says China has to stop that. Yet here we are on the House floor, trying to do the exact same thing to our export of natural gas, and we're going to be called on it just like we called it out on China. Secondly, besides being hypocritical, this is going to kill American jobs. We need not just to buy American; we need to sell American around the world: our cars, our ag products, our electronics, computers, and, yes, our natural gas. That's how we grow America's economy. I urge defeat.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the celebration of David Marvin Blumberg's 60th birthday. David was born on December 26, 1951 in Jacksonville, Florida. He is the fourth of five children born to Marvin Bernard and Mary Louise Blumberg. David obtained his Masters Degree of Public Administration in 1994 from the University of North Florida. He was honorably discharged from his service in the USAF in 1974 after having worked as an instrument mechanic on the Minute Man 1, 2, and 3 missiles at Vandenberg AFB, CA. David worked alongside his father at Marvin Blumberg and Sons from 1974-1982. He was certified as an FAA Air Traffic Controller and worked in that capacity from 1982-2006. Presently he is serving as an Air Traffic Safety Risk Management Facilitator and Instructor nationwide. David is the proud father of Lauren, Will, Olivia, Nathan and Natalie. He has one grandchild, Walker Brooks Haas. David plays the drums in a band comprised of other Air Traffic Controllers who raise money for charities and to date they have raised over $650,000 for local and national charities. David will be moving to Fort Worth, Texas to supplement the Federal Aviation Administration's Safety Risk Management staff. His band Aire Traffic will be playing future benefit concerts to raise money for the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and for the Joseph Sam's School for Special Needs Children in Fayetteville, GA. Please join me in wishing David Blumberg a very happy 60th birthday.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Look, if you think what's working is fine, we don't need to change anything. You think 27 million people trying to find a full-time job, many of them who have been out of work for 6 months or more, if you think that's great, the status quo is perfect, then this motion to instruct is what you want. But I believe, and many people believe on both sides of the aisle, that we can do better; that those who are unemployed and looking for a job truly want a paycheck. They don't long for that unemployment check every 2 weeks or each month. They long for a job every day. And what we want to do is to turn loose those who know their community and economy best to put together the innovative program, to put people back to work sooner rather than later, because we know the longer you stay out of work, the harder it is to find that job. The less education you have, the harder it is to find that job and to keep that job. And so the question at hand here is, should we allow our local communities, our local States, to work with businesses, to work with workers, design programs to get people back to work sooner rather than later? It's worked before in other areas. We've given States the waivers to put together innovative programs on welfare, again to help educate people and train them and link them up with workers so they have a real life, a real career, not a dependency on a Federal check. And as a result of that, with five Democrat and Republican Governors working with Democrat and Republican White Houses, we have succeeded in putting people back to work, getting them off the welfare rolls as productive citizens. It's worked before. So why don't we apply this same type of innovation to a system that has been in place since the 1930s? Frankly, we need a 21st century solution. Washington in this case, these tired old ways that are failing workers, why are we sticking with them? Why don't we allow States, not direct them, not mandate them, why don't we simply allow them to put together programs for job training so you can match people's skills or give them skills to get a job. Why don't we require that from the first day you get an unemployment check to the last day that you're actively searching for work each day, not going through the motions, as some do, but that every person getting that help is searching aggressively every day to do their best. Why don't those who don't have a high school education with years left in the workforce, why don't we allow States to put together the program to get them that GED so that they actually have a chance for a better life because they, again, first to be laid off, hardest to find a job, why don't we give them some hope and a high school equivalent degree while they're on unemployment. Why don't we ensure that those who are getting help for unemployment are ready and available to work. Too often, in all sizes of towns across this country, we're finding workers who can't pass a simple drug test. More jobs these days require that drug test. Why don't we allow States to put programs together to screen those early on and put programs together so that that applicant is a clean applicant who's ready and willing to work who actually has a bright future for themselves and their children. So at the end of the day this is a simple question: Do we stick with the status quo that we know isn't working? Do we allow States and local communities to be innovative to get people back to work sooner rather than later? These are the commonsense reforms we think this country and, more importantly, these workers deserve. I oppose this motion to instruct because I think it's rooted in years and decades past, and we deserve better for our workers in America today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), one of the new leaders, a freshman Member of the House Ways and Means Committees, a gentleman who with his brother has run a successful business for 15 years and understands the system we have today simply isn't working.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci), a small business owner, himself, who has helped create 1,500 new jobs in the United States.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg), one of the new freshman members of the Ways and Means Committee who has taken a leadership role, who understands it's not an unemployment check the workers are seeking, it's a paycheck.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think there is bipartisan agreement--Republicans and Democrats--on extending unemployment benefits for a full year. Clearly, we're in tough economic times. But here we are 2\1/2\ years after the recession officially ended, and yet we have 27 million people who can't find a full-time job. We have a lower unemployment rate principally because so many Americans have simply given up looking for work. What we know is the current unemployment system is not working. I think we can all agree that an unemployment check is no substitute for a paycheck. We know the longer a person stays unemployed, the harder it is for them to get back in the workforce. Most studies show that after 2 years, the chances of you getting back in the workforce becomes very, very slim, yet the government today subsidizes that unemployment for almost that full 2 years. There's agreement that the sooner we get people back to work the better it is for them, and the better it is for our economy. But what the Federal Government is doing today, it isn't working. We have a system from the 1930s. We need an unemployment system for the 21st century, for today's economy. Commonsense reforms are in order, but the Democrat motion to instruct that we just heard about destroys those reforms to put people back to work. Under the House bill, we allow States, those who know the economies better, who know their workers best, to put together innovative programs to get people off unemployment and back into the workforce where they belong. Under the House bill, for example, we require workers to actually look aggressively for a job. You would think that's common sense, but under Federal law today a person can go 1\1/2\ years receiving unemployment benefits and not be looking for a job. In some States, you don't have to look for a job at all. Well, that's not acceptable. And those without a GED or a high school diploma, those whose chances of getting a job are the slimmest, those who are laid off first and hired last, they struggle. But under the House bill, we allow States to put together the programs that actually get those workers that education. For example, if you're 40 years old and don't have a GED, the truth of the matter is you still have a quarter of a century left in the workforce. We want to help you get that education, to be a better applicant, to get a better job, to have a brighter future. But this bill denies States the ability to help get that education for their workers. We give States the ability to tailor job training programs to get people, again, back to work. This is what the President talked about when he cited Georgia Works and other issues on job creation. The Democrat motion stops States who know their local economies best from putting, again, these job trainings in place for their workers. And finally, in the House bill, we recognize and believe it's time to stop subsidizing drug use through Federal benefits. Now, I wonder how many people this morning went to work in the dark; how many single moms struggled to get their kids to school before they went to work; how many people are driving home right now, are going to miss their kid's practice, they were at work; how many told their Boy Scout they couldn't be at the campout this weekend because they had to work on Saturday; how many people working one, two, three jobs that Washington takes money from their paycheck to help people who are unemployed. And all the House bill does is to ensure that States are allowed to help people get that education, get that job training, end subsidizing drug use, so they're better applicants with a brighter future. We don't require States to do this. We allow States to have waivers, to be innovative to do that. At the end of the day, the truth of the matter is we have so many companies who tell us they want to hire good workers with good salaries, but these workers can't pass even a basic drug test. Look, if you've got a casual drug habit or a more serious problem, finance it on your own. You're not going to take tax dollars from your neighbor who's working one or two or three jobs to finance your drug habit. In fact, your future is dimmed because of it. And if States decide not to implement a drug screening program, it's their decision; it's not Washington's. The Democrat motion makes sense only if you work in Washington and think the current status quo is working. It is not. So I respectfully oppose the motion, support the proposed waiver authority, as well as its other provisions. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), one of the leaders of getting this economy and America back on track and people back into good-paying jobs.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. President, Senate Democrat leaders, don't vacation until you finish your job. Families and small businesses need tax relief for a full year, not just for 2 months. The House, we've already done our job. We've already passed a full 1- year extension of the payroll tax holiday. We've included unemployment reforms for those who are out of work, paying our local doctors fairly in Medicare for a full 2 years, unlocking the Keystone pipeline, and cutting spending to completely pay for it. We've done our job. But the Democrat-led Senate shortchanged the American public by rushing through a partial 2-month extension and then hurrying home for their Christmas vacations. That's irresponsible. Families and small businesses need to be able to plan with confidence for a full year, not just 2 measly months. You said, Mr. President, just last week, that the American people deserve a 1-year bill. Our Democratic friends said a 1-year bill. The Democrats in the Senate said a 1-year bill. Well, House Republicans are going to hold you to your word by moving forward today to a conference committee to work out the differences. We're going to work it out--not next year, not when you get around to it, but now. That's the next step in the constitutional process, and we House Republicans are willing to work through the holidays to make sure we get the job done for the American public. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share with all of you an American success story built on hard work and an overflowing community spirit. Bill Buchanan is one of the newest members of the Texas Radio Hall of Fame. He got there the old fashioned way--he went to work everyday to keep his community both informed and entertained and his peers honored him for it. Let me tell you a bit about Bill. He didn't get his start in Texas radio. He started making his way selling appliances in Kentucky and working part-time as a radio sports announcer and writing copy for the Indianapolis Star. He then packed his bags and headed south landing at KGTN in Georgetown, Texas where he started making a name for himself selling radio commercials. In 1977, he got the news that would change his life forever. He learned that a radio station was for sale in Liberty. He bought what was then KPXE and put down roots in Liberty. In the last nearly quarter century, he's made the switch to the FM dial and kept providing Liberty County with ``music mixed with things that matter.'' Engineering publications and even Readers Digest took note of the station's ``split-channel'' innovations. Bill remains very hands on at KSHN and many people in Liberty still talk about how his coverage of The John Hebert Distributing Fire was heard around the world and how KSHN has been in lifeline in floods and Hurricanes Rita and Ike. Bill Buchanan and KSHN are a huge part of the community of Liberty. The Texas Radio Hall of Fame is lucky to have Bill Buchanan because he keeps local radio local by refusing to let his station be simply a jukebox.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share with America something very good about America--a true blue American success story in a cowboy hat and boots--my friend, Larry Galla, one of the newest members of the Texas Radio Hall of Fame. When Larry opens up the microphone, you know magic is about to happen. Not the flashy magic of a Vegas stage show, but the magic of listening to an old friend spin yarns and records without skipping a beat. Larry's magic is in making all of us feel right at home. But, to many stars in the country music scene, praise from Larry is a different kind of magic. It's the kind of magic that turns ordinary records into gold records and musicians into stars. Larry Galla has been a staple on the Houston area airwaves for nearly four decades making the leap to Houston--a top 10 radio market. After spending nearly half his career at KIKR, Larry returned to Conroe and his roots at K-Star where he gets to share the microphone with another Hall of Famer, Mary McCoy. Conroe has celebrated with a Larry Galla Day, but it's time the rest of the country knew Larry's name as well as some of the great legends of country music do. From Johnny Cash to Ernest Tubb to George Strait and Billy Currington, when Larry plays their songs, people listen. When Larry interviews an artist, we all learn a lot more about the music Texans love to sing along to, because to Larry, it's the sound music makes over the radiowaves that matters the most and his dedication to the music is second to none. That's why so many musicians have asked him to take the stage with them over the years. Today, the spotlight is all on Larry.