Kevin Brady

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) who has been a leader on lowering taxes, fighting the expansion of government, and expanding liberty.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Chair, a gun is pointed at the head of our taxpayers, and it will go off January 1 unless Congress acts. If we let that gun go off, it is going to hurt families who are struggling to make ends meet, it is going to hurt small businesses trying to survive this recession, it is going to hurt seniors, almost tripling the taxes on the dividends that they need to live month to month and day to day. It is going to hurt businesses trying to track capital. And it is going to revive the death tax, an immoral tax where you work your whole life to build up your nest egg, your small business, your family-owned farm, and when you die, Uncle Sam swoops in and takes more than half of everything you have earned. All that happens if Congress refuses to act. Some are here today saying, no, let's not change that death tax. Let's raise that death tax. Last night on my Facebook page, I got a posting from Tammy Fisher of East Texas. Her family has had to sell 6,000 acres of their timber land to pay the death tax. They held that land for 100 years. Clarence Leaveritt of Texas is a rancher. His grandmother died. They had to take out a loan from the bank to pay the death tax. They are still paying on it. His father passed away recently, and they had to take out a second loan. Today he is paying two loans to Uncle Sam and can barely keep his ranch. And last night, we heard Democrats say, Those people are stingy and cheap, and haven't worked a day in their life. All that death tax comes back January 1 if we don't act. And I'll tell you what, we have some very good friends of mine who say, ``Look, just let that gun go off because we can get a better deal later.'' Well, I am conservative and I am skeptical, and I am not raising taxes for anyone for any period, period. I don't like the spending in this bill, and I offered an amendment, along with other conservatives, to cut $152 billion from this bill to cover all the costs. We couldn't get a vote on that. We are voting on a lot of things tonight, but not a straight up-or-down vote on trimming government. We didn't get that vote, but I can tell you, on the spending cuts, this isn't the end of that discussion; it is the beginning. When we have a new Republican majority, I'm going to take that gun down from our taxpayers' head. I'm going to give them a chance to keep their own money, get this economy going, and keep fighting for permanent tax relief and a permanent death tax repeal.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Clarke Wardlaw McCants, Jr., of Columbia, South Carolina, who passed away on December 3 of this year. Clarke Wardlaw McCants, Jr., was a brilliant legal mind. Growing up in Columbia in the 1930s, he distinguished himself among his peers as a fine attorney and was recognized by The Best Lawyers in America in its Trusts and Estates Section. An active member of the American Bar Association, he even served as the Editor of the Association's Journal of Real Property and Probate Trust Law. Not just an outstanding lawyer, Clarke McCants was a kind man who raised a fine family that he took great pride in. He is survived by his wife of 54 years, Anne Lucius McCants and many loving children and grandchildren. It is important that the people of our nation step forward to serve their communities and give back to their country. This was not lost on Clarke McCants who gave generously of his time to his community. Educated at the University of South Carolina as both an undergraduate and a law school student, he was a very active participant in the student government and many various extra curricular programs on campus such as Omicron Delta Kappa, President of Pi Kappa Alpha, and the debate team. Between his undergraduate and law school education, Mr. McCants served us all in the United States Army Air Corps as a flight radio operator. His service in World War II earned him one Bronze Star. We are thankful for his service and we can all learn from the life experiences of Clarke Wardlaw McCants, Jr. In closing, I just wanted to take a moment to share my condolences to the family of Clarke Wardlaw McCants, Jr. The entire staff and I are sorry for your loss and the pain this has caused you and your family.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to join others in thanking Chairman Tanner, chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, for his leadership and service to our country and our economy through the years. He will be missed. Mr. Speaker, our economy is struggling, and this Congress hasn't done enough to help promote the job creation we so desperately need. Congress needs a new playbook, and this legislation can be the first new play we run. The bipartisan legislation extends the Generalized System of Preferences and the Andean Trade Preferences Act and renews and establishes certain miscellaneous tariff reductions. In doing so, this bill lowers taxes on the products that American manufacturers need to be more competitive. More competitive U.S. manufacturers means more jobs for American workers. America's farmers will benefit from this legislation as well, because it will help hold down the cost of fertilizers and pesticides. More importantly, American families will benefit from this legislation. In fact, American families will see double benefits. Not only will it help promote job creation, it will lower costs for consumers. At a time when so many families are struggling to get by, lower taxes on these products can help American families make ends meet. Expert analysis has demonstrated how these provisions will support American jobs. For example, the miscellaneous tariffs legislation could support as many as 90,000 U.S. jobs. The Preferences program has been found to support 682,000 jobs and lower costs for consumers by $273 million. In today's difficult economic times, these are clearly policies the Congress should support. Additionally, the extension of the ATPA program will provide critical support for our strongest ally in South America, Colombia. Right now, Colombia is suffering from terrible flooding and has declared a state of emergency. This natural disaster has badly damaged the Colombian economy, and Colombians cannot afford even a temporary lapse of this program. I share the frustration of many of my colleagues that Congress has not taken up the U.S.-Colombia trade agreement, which would remove barriers to American sales to Colombia. America's farmers and ranchers are already losing exports as other countries implement trade agreements with Colombia ahead of us and gain a competitive advantage, and that's why this agreement has bipartisan support. I urge supporters on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the ATPA program does not lapse so we can support our allies in Colombia while we continue our efforts to bring the trade agreement to the floor of Congress for a successful vote. Also, this legislation continues to authorize the 2009 law updating and approving the Trade Adjustment Assistance program in various respects. Such improvements included allowing better and more successful training options to trade-impacted workers and providing trade adjustment benefits to service workers, given the importance of the service sector in America's economy. The 2009 law also helps ensure TAA program accountability and results by requiring data on the program's performance and its worker outcome. This will enable us to measure how the program is effective and where improvements are needed. Significantly, this bill prevents the U.S. Department of Labor from forcing Texas and 26 other States to use only so-called State ``merit'' employees to provide Trade Adjustment Assistance-funded services. This Federal mandate went against the wishes of Congress and has unnecessarily distracted States from efficiently providing TAA services to trade-impacted workers. The bill delays the ill-advised Labor Department rule for the next year and a half, helping to ensure that the congressional intent behind the 2009 bipartisan TAA law is respected and that each State may continue to decide how best to provide high-quality TAA services to trade-impacted workers to get them retrained and back to work. Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Camp for working so hard to bring this legislation to the floor. This can be the first play out of a new bipartisan playbook that promotes trade as a means to grow the economy and create jobs. The playbook should also include seeking congressional passage of the three pending trade agreements in the first half of next year: a high-standard Trans- Pacific Partnership agreement by the U.S.-hosted APEC leaders' summit next November, an ambitious outcome to the WTO Doha talks next year, and other trade-opening initiatives. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) who has led the Trade Subcommittee in past years.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

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

Mr. BRADY of Texas. At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman who is a leader in cutting taxes and in restraining the level of government spending, the leader of the House Republicans, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Final point: These dollars won't be used for deficit reduction. Democrats and the President have signed seven bills, $625 billion of tax increases, in the last 2 years. Guess how much went to deficit reduction? Not a dime. It all went to expand the government and double that to a bigger government. Let's stop playing games. Let's get real solutions. Let's have an up- or-down vote that extends tax relief for all Americans, that helps move us into the next 2 years, and let's stop that ticking tax bomb.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield myself 15 seconds to point out the Chamber of Commerce says 2,600 businesses, small businesses, and business associations have signed a letter pushing and making the case for extending all tax relief for all small businesses and all taxpayers, including a number from California, the Orange County Business Council, the North Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, and a number of other small businesses. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who has fought against higher taxes and for more small business job creation.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, why are we playing these political games? We have 15 million people out of work, we have families, small businesses, seniors and job creators facing a nearly $4 trillion tax bomb that will go off on January 1, and here we are playing political games. This bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. Everyone knows it. We are wasting time today. And worse than that, it undercuts the President's own sincere efforts to work with Dave Camp, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Senate Republicans and Senate and House Democrats to actually come up with a real solution to solve this problem. Instead, this body is rushing forward with more political theater. And my question is, wasn't September the time to play political games? Right now with the clock ticking, shouldn't we be all about solutions? Let's talk about two myths. Democrats say, let's pass this, it will help jump-start the economy. It will do just the opposite. One, the people they hit, these consumers, hold one of every $3 in consumption today. So Democrats say, instead of going into that Main Street shop this Christmas season spending money, send your dollars to Washington, that will help the economy. Secondly, it damages the small businesses that are the backbone of job creation. You will hear this claim that it only hits 3 percent of small businesses. You know how they figured that? They counted the tax ID numbers so people who have small businesses that have been vacant for years are still counted. But if you count the actual income from small businesses, that's what gets taxed, half of all small business income, half of all the income that creates jobs in America will be hammered by the Democrats' tax bill. And don't take my word for it. The Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional Budget Office, and the President's own head of the Council of Economic Advisers say passing all tax relief for all people in America will boost the U.S. economy more than this bill.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today with strong concerns about two provisions in this bill related to the pay-fors. First, some of the policies in this bill make sense such as extending welfare programs or better preventing incorrect unemployment insurance payments. But beyond this, instead of using the UI and trade-related savings in this bill to reduce our Nation's staggering deficit or pay for extending unemployment benefits or promoting job-creating trade, Democrats want to use these savings for new, unrelated spending. Going on a spending spree now will make the job of helping the unemployed, promoting job-creating trade, and balancing the budget next year even harder. For example, by better preventing and recovering unemployment benefit overpayments, this bill saves about $3 billion over the next decade. But at a time of record budget deficits when many States and Federal unemployment programs are bankrupt and deeply in debt, that money will not be used to strengthen unemployment insurance programs or even to pay for a needed extension of these benefits. Instead, this legislation diverts that money outside of the unemployment insurance system for unrelated spending. How that makes sense is beyond me. While we're on the issue of diversion, this bill uses customs user fees, which are fees associated with the import process and which typically are used when we are passing trade legislation to benefit U.S. manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, and workers such as the miscellaneous trade bill, our preference programs for developing countries, and trade promotion agreements. The fact that this bill diverts the fees to offset a nontrade program limits our ability to pass trade legislation that helps create American jobs and levels the playing field abroad for our U.S. farmers, manufacturers, and service companies. I've grown tired, frankly, Mr. Speaker, of this Congress using the Ways and Means Committee to support its spending sprees. When we spend money on a new program, we should offset that with spending cuts, not by using funds already designated for a pro-growth, pro-job purpose. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, ten years ago today, our world lost a great champion for global democracy and the rule of law. John Alvis, a close friend and constituent of mine, was murdered on November 30, 2000 in Baku, Azerbaijan where he was working for the cause most dear to his heart spreading democracy around the globe. For those of you who never had the honor to meet John, I'd like to tell you today about this 36 year old idealistic warrior for international democracy who never met a stranger. I first got to know John when he helped guide my first campaign for Congress and in 1999, I was honored to witness first hand John's impact around the globe as he assisted the Republic of Georgia in their transition to a democratic government. His passion to export American democratic principles was unrivaled and that lead him from his home in Texas to the former Soviet Union. John's young life was ended by an unknown assailant while he serving as a resident director of the International Republican Institute, training campaign workers and election officials in Azerbaijan. One of his colleagues there probably described John best as someone who ``touched the lives of everyone he came in contact with.'' I and members of my staff remember John for his infectious laugh, his great sense of humor, his passion for all things politics, his love for man's best friend, his Dalmatian Jersey, and his innate ability to keep people together even in the toughest of times. Even though it was just two weeks before John was due to return home to celebrate Christmas that he was killed, this proud Aggie lives on through the recipients of the John Alvis Memorial Scholarship at Texas A&M University who exemplify his passionate American Patriotism through their public service. I am concerned that John's murder remains unsolved. Madam speaker, I want to take this opportunity to impress on the Government of Azerbaijan and the FBI the necessity to continue to press to bring those responsible for this heinous act to justice.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve. General Leave

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the effort, Mr. Speaker, by Chairman Levin to address the concerns of Ranking Member Camp and other Republican Members that were raised at our various hearings. And while the revised version addresses the WTO consistency issue, my view is that, on balance, the promises that this bill makes to compel China to appreciate its currency to reduce the trade deficit and to create U.S. jobs won't be realized, and, therefore, I oppose this bill. Rather than focus on China's currency policy alone, a priority must be creating American jobs by promoting U.S. exports, and this bill doesn't do enough to provide new market access for American businesses, farmers, and workers. If we are to meet the President's goal of doubling exports, we must focus our energy on tearing down real substantive barriers to U.S. access to China's consumers. We must require China to better U.S. intellectual property rights and end its directed lending, cease its innovative policy, and move other artificial barriers to U.S. exports. Such an effort would benefit thousands more American workers than the focus on China currency alone. I am concerned that moving on this bill makes it more difficult for us to resolve these other issues, and I think we ought to be careful to avoid doing more harm than good in tearing down these barriers. Breaking down barriers to U.S. exports is difficult work and requires concerted effort by Congress and the administration. To begin with, rather than merely paying lip service to new and pending trade agreements, we have to find a way to move these agreements forward. Currently, there is no clear end date for concluding the Trans- Pacific partnership negotiations, no plan from the administration on how it intends to resolve issues related to the U.S.-Colombian, -Panama trade agreements, and just limited discussion on the U.S.-South Korea trade agreement. The administration must also return to the negotiating table and complete bilateral investment treaty negotiations with China. Entering into a bit with China could help on many of these issues and is necessary to ensure that Americans have the same rights in China as our other trading partners. Mr. Speaker, while this bill is improved from its original version, it is no substitute for a comprehensive China policy that the administration and the majority have failed to give us. I urge, and strongly urge, a ``no'' vote on this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I do think it is unfortunate to try to interject partisan politics into a serious issue. There is already concern that after 4 years this bill is now being rushed to the floor a few weeks ahead of the election. I think at this point on an issue so serious, we ought to be thoughtful, understanding there are Members on both sides of the aisle that have come to different conclusions about this bill. With that, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This is an issue, I think, where good people can disagree. There is unanimity in the desire for China to appreciate its currency. There are differences of opinion about what impact that truly would have on our complex relationship with China economically. And there have been a number of issues raised throughout the hearings on this bill, and I do appreciate, to Chairman Levin, taking into account the number of the objections on the most, we think, troubling provisions that Ranking Member Dave Camp from Michigan and others raised during those hearings. I think some of those issues have been addressed in a very positive way, but there are real concerns about how effective this will be, and if it will truly compel China to change its currency regime or that it will significantly change our trade deficit. I would like to submit for the Record a letter sent by, I think, almost 30 of our major job creators in America, groups that represent many of our agriculture companies and workers, our technology sector, our manufacturing and financial services sector, those who produce and sell medical devices and services throughout the world, including groups like the National Retail Federation; the broader job creators like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and companies that compete and succeed successfully selling U.S. products in China. This letter agrees with Chairman Levin and others that China needs a yuan exchange rate response to trade flows and that China should move rapidly toward that. But it says: ``We do not agree, however, that H.R. 2378 as reported can help achieve that goal. To the contrary, we believe that passage of this legislation is counterproductive not only to the goals related to China's exchange rate that we all share but also to our Nation's broader goals of addressing the many and growing challenges in the U.S.-China economic relationship, including inadequate protection of intellectual property, restrictions on market access, financial services liberalization, export of commodities such as rare earths, discriminatory indigenous innovation and other industrial policies. Above all, this legislation will do more harm than good to job creation and economic growth at a time when we need both dearly.'' The point of that, I think, is that there are a number of barriers to selling U.S. products fairly and successfully in that growing Chinese market. We all have the same goal. How we achieve it is where we honestly differ. This group concludes this way: ``We share Congress' desire to have China act more quickly to adopt a market-determined exchange rate, but the proposed unilateral measure is not going to achieve that result. We urge you to oppose H.R. 2378 and, instead, work with and vigorously call on the administration to develop a robust bilateral and multilateral approach to achieve tangible results, not only on China's exchange rate policies, but also on other Chinese policies that are harming American businesses, workers and farmers.'' I think that is the point, perhaps, of those of us who believe this bill will not achieve what we hope. While I urge opposition of this bill, there are those who believe that, as we move forward, regardless of the outcome, we ought to, Republicans and Democrats, join hands and insist on fair access to Chinese markets, on a level playing field and on a growing trade relationship that is balanced to increase Chinese consumption, as well as to increase U.S. savings that will rebalance the trade relationship for decades to come. We share those goals and look forward to working with those in Congress who also share them. September 28, 2010. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. Steny Hoyer, Majority Leader, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. John Boehner, Republican Leader, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leaders Hoyer and Boehner: Like Congress and the Administration, we agree that China needs a yuan exchange rate that responds to trade flows and that China should move rapidly towards a market-determined exchange rate. In addition to continuing U.S. government efforts, our organizations support strong, coordinated and enhanced multilateral pressure, including at the early October Finance Ministers' Meeting in Washington and continuing at the November G20 Leaders' Meeting in Seoul, to achieve concrete progress on China's currency and exchange rate policies. We do not agree, however, that H.R. 2378 as reported by the Committee on Ways and Means can help achieve that goal. To the contrary, we believe that passage of this legislation is counterproductive not only to the goals related to China's exchange rate that we all share, but also to our nation's broader goals of addressing the many and growing challenges in the U.S.-China economic relationship, including inadequate protection of intellectual property, restrictions on market access, financial services liberalization, export of commodities such as rare earths, discriminatory indigenous innovation and other industrial policies. Above all this legislation will do more harm than good to job creation and economic growth at a time when we need both dearly. Unilateral legislation, which seeks to increase tariffs on imports from China, is unlikely to incentivize China to move expeditiously to modify its exchange policies. Rather, it would likely have the opposite effect and could engender retaliation against U.S. exports into the Chinese market, currently the fastest-growing market for U.S. exports. Our companies do not fear retaliation--if it were based on WTO- consistent actions that would achieve the desired result, with benefits outweighing the costs. But counterproductive tariff legislation will not get us closer to the goal of a market-driven exchange rate and will shift the focus away from the core issue of China's currency and onto U.S. unilateral action. Such an action would embolden PRC retaliation and undermine U.S. government efforts to address a growing number of discriminatory Chinese policies, weakening our economy by harming American exports of manufactured goods and farm products. Despite efforts to make H.R. 2378 consistent with the rules of the WTO, it is not clear that the legislation meets the WTO's standards for the application of countervailing duties (CVDs). The legislation would require the Commerce Department to estimate what the ``true'' exchange rate is, a process that will be highly subjective and potentially politicized. Since application of CVDs to imports from China on the basis of this legislation is of questionable WTO legality, China would almost certainly challenge this action as violative of U.S. WTO obligations, which would focus the world's attention on the United States and WTO technicalities, and away from China's exchange-rate policies. We share Congress' desire to have China act more quickly to adopt a market-determined exchange rate. But the proposed unilateral measure is not going to achieve that result. We urge you to oppose H.R. 2378 and instead work with and vigorously call on the Administration to develop a robust bilateral and multilateral approach to achieve tangible results not only on China's exchange-rate policies, but also on other Chinese policies that are harming American businesses, workers and farmers. Sincerely, Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed); American Chamber of Commerce in China; American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai; American Chamber of Commerce in South China; American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA); American Soybean Association; American Meat Institute; Business Roundtable; Coalition of New England Companies for Trade (CONECT); Coalition of Service Industries; Consumer Electronics Association; and Corn Refiners Association. Distilled Spirits Council of the United States; Emergency Committee for American Trade (ECAT); Fashion Accessories Shippers Association (FASA); Financial Services Forum; Financial Services Roundtable; International Dairy Foods Association; Los Angeles Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Association; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America (NCBFAA); National Fisheries Institute; National Foreign Trade Council; and National Retail Federation. Pacific Coast Council of Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders (PCC); Retail Industry Leaders Association; Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association; Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association; Toy Industry Association; Travel Goods Association (TGA); United States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel (USA-ITA); U.S. Chamber of Commerce; US-China Business Council; U.S. Council for International Business; USA Poultry & Egg Export Council; and Washington State China Relations Council. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I am, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.