Kevin Brady

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, we're all aware of the ongoing turbulence in the credit markets that has made it very difficult for owners of real estate, including commercial real estate, to obtain financing for new projects or to refinance existing ones. Transaction volumes have fallen, asset values have fallen, and rents have fallen. Our real estate markets are desperate for infusion of new capital. One significant source of capital investment for these projects is foreign investors. It's important for Congress to periodically review the restrictions that the U.S. Tax Code imposes on foreign investment to ensure that these restrictions do not unnecessarily discourage this investment, especially during times like this. Earlier this year, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) worked with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) to introduce H.R. 4539, legislation that would modify some of the tax rules in this area collectively known as FIRPTA, the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act. Today's legislation based on their earlier bill would remove an unnecessary barrier to foreign investment in the U.S. real estate market, providing increased liquidity that is sorely needed. Under current law, foreign portfolio investors who own less than 5 percent of U.S. publicly traded companies are exempted from the more stringent tax regime under FIRPTA. This bill would simply raise that 5 percent threshold for this FIRPTA exception to 10 percent for investments in publicly traded real estate investment trusts, or REITs. This modification would encourage investment of additional capital into our real estate markets at a time when the credit markets need it most. Let me say just a word about the offset the majority has chosen for this bill, the tightening of the IRS levy rules for Federal contractors identified as owing taxes. This provision is based on a similar proposal that was included in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request, and it was subsequently included in H.R. 4849, the small business and infrastructure spending bill introduced by Chairman Levin, which passed the House on a mostly party-line vote on March 24 of this year. The bill we're considering today was introduced just last night, and for the very first time, the real estate proposal that Mr. Tiberi had been working on with the gentleman from New York has been paired up with this particular offset. Since the bill with this new offset was introduced last night, we've conducted considerable due diligence on this provision, including discussion with representatives of numerous associations representing potentially affected taxpayers. While none of these associations have offered any expressions of support for this offset, we are, at this time, unaware of any group that intends to actively oppose this bill because of this provision. Should H.R. 5901 pass the House, I'll certainly continue to discuss this new provision with potentially affected groups to ensure it does not place any undue burden on taxpayers. That being said, the crisis in the credit markets is a serious concern we all share, and this bill will help our struggling real estate markets get the capital they need. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, addressing some earlier comments, many Democrats, including Chairman Levin, supported bringing China into the World Trade Organization to force them to play by the rules. And since we've done that, when they have violated those rules, the United States has prevailed in seven of the eight complaints we have brought to that organization. So it is helping keep China in line so we have a level playing field. Also, if you've picked up the paper in the last week, you've noticed that while auto sales in the United States for our auto manufacturers has remained flat, its sales are growing overseas, and its profits are growing because they're allowed to sell American automobiles around the world. That's good for the U.S. auto workers in the United States. I appreciate the chairman bringing this legislation together. I know it is well-intended. It's important to tackle America's trade deficit the right way. And I think everyone understands another government commission alone is no substitute for new customers for American workers, farmers, and manufacturers. The best way to strengthen the trade deficit while strengthening America's economy is to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and open the world to more U.S. products and services. I know if my Democrat friends and those in the White House are serious about reducing the trade deficit, we are eager to work with them by starting to take up and passing the pending trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. I rise in support of this bill because I think that any objective and honest commission will find that creating new markets and new customers for American exports will reduce our trade deficit, will create jobs, and stimulate our economy. I think it's absolutely appropriate that Congress is considering this legislation today of all days. Today is the fifth anniversary of House passage of the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement, which gives us an opportunity to look at real results. Those results clearly show how trade agreements increase U.S. sales and reduce trade deficits. As you know, America is a very open market. Countries sell into the United States. But when we try to sell our products, too often we find that ``America need not apply'' sign. Trade agreements tear that sign down and give us a chance not one-way trade in, but two-way trade where we have a level playing field. The world has changed. It's not enough to simply buy American. We have to sell American. We have to sell our products and goods and services throughout this world. In fact, over 80 percent of our trade deficit today is with countries that are not trade agreement partners, that are not level playing fields for the United States. That's why we push hard for those agreements. For example, 5 years ago the United States had a $1.2 billion trade deficit with Central America. Last year, the United States had turned that around, because of the agreement, to a $1.2 billion trade surplus, and we're on track to surpass that surplus again this year. Last year, the United States had a trade surplus in manufactured goods with our Central American partners of almost $2 billion. We're on track again this year. Nor is CAFTA the only example of how trade agreements can improve the U.S. trade balance. This week also marks the eighth anniversary of the final House vote on the Trade Act of 2002, under which we have resoundingly successful trade agreements with 13 countries now in force. Last year, the United States had a trade surplus of over $25 billion with these 13 countries. And so far this year, we have a surplus again. Looking at just trade in manufactured goods reveals that these agreements were even better for American manufacturing workers. Last year, the United States had a trade surplus of over $29 billion in manufactured products with these countries that we have free trade agreements. And again, we have this year a surplus already of nearly $16 billion. Without question, these trade agreements have reduced U.S. trade deficits and increased U.S. trade surpluses. The three pending agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea would have the same results by leveling the playing field for our American workers. Madam Speaker, there is one sector in which the United States runs a structural trade deficit, that is energy, and I appreciate the chairman including this in the commission. Last year, our deficit in energy products accounted for almost half of the trade deficit. So our trade deficit isn't principally in goods--it's in oil, it's in energy. That's what the American people want to change. We can take an enormous step toward reducing our trade deficit simply by increasing American-made energy. Unfortunately, many Democrats in Congress have taken just about every step they can to reduce American-made energy production. First, House Democrats rushed through the House a massive national energy tax that would cripple the U.S. energy sector. Now, the White House has defied the courts and has imposed a moratorium on offshore drilling that damages jobs and damages U.S. energy production. The impact of that moratorium would be to increase the deficit because it will result in more imports of foreign oil. This moratorium also means fewer manufacturing jobs. In fact, last week a recent analysis by IHS Global Insight found the drilling moratorium in the gulf would result in over 300,000 jobs lost along the gulf and over $147 billion in lost State, local, and Federal tax revenue. It is a terrible blow to American jobs. If the sponsors of this legislation are serious--and I believe they are--about reducing the trade deficit and working together to create manufacturing jobs, let's focus on negotiating more trade agreements to open foreign markets to our U.S. sales and promoting U.S. energy production. We don't need a new government commission to accomplish either of these. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the former top Republican on the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from California who's focused on creating jobs through selling more California and United States products and services, Mr. Herger.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, at this point I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky, who is focused on creating manufacturing jobs through open markets, Congressman Davis.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman who is the top Republican on the Oversight Committee on Ways and Means and has focused both on ending the drilling moratorium that is killing U.S. jobs in the gulf, and also opening new markets for our American manufacturers, services, and ag community, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to support this legislation, but I cannot. As Mr. Camp has pointed out, this has always been a bipartisan process. When Republicans were in the majority, we regularly prepared this legislation in a bipartisan, transparent manner. It was bipartisan because Democrats and Republicans worked together to review every provision and to ensure there was no opposition to any provision and that it protected American companies. It was transparent because every provision was reviewed by the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the ITC's report was posted online for all of America to review. Every provision was subject to public notice and comment. I am happy to say, and I compliment our Democrat majority for continuing these transparent policies in this legislation, but as lead Republican originally on this bill, however, I will vote against this legislation because it violates the letter and the spirit of the Republican moratorium on earmark requests. Congress has to get a handle on earmarks. There is no question about it. While the miscellaneous tariff bill, the one we are looking at today, ought to be a model for the way other committees deal with the earmark requests, in the House rule, clause 9, the majority's overbroad and, I think, carelessly written effort to handle the earmark problem has, unfortunately, netted these provisions. As a result, in establishing a moratorium to discipline the process, Republicans have no choice but to include a miscellaneous tariff bill. That is the only reason I'm voting against this bill. I guess I am puzzled. This is no surprise. We visited as Republicans and Democrats on this issue, trying to find a way forward for months now. If you are truly serious about passing this measure, why would you demand a supermajority that ensures its defeat rather than a normal majority vote that ensures its passage? For months, we've said we cannot help the moratorium on this bill this year, and we are sincere about it. By choosing the suspension route, you have killed this bill. So the question is: Where do we go from here? We have so many trade issues that we face as Republicans and Democrats. We have differences about what that trade agenda should be. I worry--and others do--that we have moved to the sidelines. Other countries have stepped ahead of us, selling their products ahead of U.S. products. We've seen this in Colombia, where American farmers have now lost half of our market because of our benching ourselves as a country. We have to find a bipartisan way forward on opening new markets for U.S. companies. We have to find a bipartisan way forward on facilitating trade, on modernizing our own customs and border processes to allow trade while we become more secure. We have to find a bipartisan way forward on the pending trade agreements with Colombia and Panama and Korea. The President has asked us to find a way forward as he tries to as well. We have to find a way forward in a bipartisan manner on China--on currency, on protecting intellectual property rights, on setting standards and rules for trade throughout this world. We have a lot at stake in working together, which is why I think choosing the most confrontational method on this bill is shortsighted and why, unfortunately, this bill will be defeated--because of the choice to seek a supermajority rather than the normal route of a majority vote in this House. Reluctantly but strongly, I oppose this bill because of the earmark moratorium. I am hopeful that the majority will bring this back under regular order. Democrats with an almost supermajority in this House already can pass this bill, but we have been very open from the beginning about the fact that, if it is brought up under suspension, it will die. I regret that. I would encourage us to find a bipartisan way forward on trade and facilitation on the miscellaneous tariff bill.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, America's economy is struggling. Despite all of the spending and promises out of Washington, a lot of average Americans, more than 15 million, are wondering where are the jobs, because they don't have one. This Democrat Congress and this White House promised a lot to these workers and to the American taxpayer if they would just give them a blank check, if they could just write money like there was no tomorrow, that they, Washington, would know best how to get this economy back on track. Unfortunately, the reality of the past 16 months since the stimulus bill passed has unfortunately been much less than what was promised. The Obama administration likes to tout right now, they call this ``the summer of recovery,'' but you don't see them touting. Because what their original promises were for that $862 billion--more than a trillion dollars, when you add the interest to it, the taxpayers will actually have to pay back. The reality is that the Obama administration, the Democrats in Washington, failed on all three key promises to the American people about its economy. They said our first promise is if you will pass this stimulus, the unemployment rate would remain below 8 percent. They said nonfarm payroll employment, that's most workers, would increase to 137.6 million by the end of this year. And then finally they said if you pass our stimulus bill, 90 percent of payroll jobs created would be in the private sector. Well, let's look at the reality. It's been 16 months, a lot of the stimulus has been spent, not all, but a lot of it. So 16 months later, what do we see? The Obama forecast was supposed to be at this point, almost 7.5 percent. Today it's actually 9.5 percent. That's a little lower than it's been. The reason it's lower: 650,000 Americans last month just gave up, gave up looking for work, gave up hope looking for work. So that employment rate went down, not because the economy is getting better, but people have given up hope that they will get a job, 16 months after this magical stimulus bill was passed, so the actual versus the forecast is very sad. Second promise, that the stimulus would raise employment, jobs in America, 137 million. This is where we're at right here, as stagnant as can be. In fact, right now, congressional Democrats and the White House, they are 7 million jobs short of where they promised they would be by the end of the year, 7 million jobs short. The economy has never created 7 million jobs in 6 months before. Short on promise number two, failed by a wide margin. And here I think is the reason. I think this sums up why the stimulus failed, why so many Americans are disappointed with the Obama administration. I think the last poll was 13 percent of Americans believe the stimulus helped them in any way, 90 percent of Americans believe this economy is in bad shape, and almost three-fourths don't believe it's going to get better any time soon. So, so much for restoring consumer confidence in America's economy. And this is the real reason why, promise number three. Remember, promise number one, below 8 percent, didn't come close; promise number two, we would have 137 million jobs by the end of this year, 7 million short. This is promise number three, that 90 percent of all the new jobs created by the stimulus would come from the private sector, not from government. They would come from small businesses back home along Main Street, the same small business and private sector jobs that have always brought America out of a deep recession. Well, here's the actuality: Since the stimulus passed 16 months ago, hundreds of billions of dollars of money spent and wasted in America, guess what's happened? The only sector that has grown--the Federal Government. The Federal Government has added 400,000 government workers. How about the private sector? How about our small businesses in every State across America? Lost almost 3.3 million jobs. Federal Government workers grew. State government came down a little, but they pumped a lot of stimulus money into more government workers. The private sector, the businesses that bring us out of the recession, lost 3.3 million jobs. That's why this economy is so subpar. America is blessed. We are, I think, genetically predisposed to bouncing back from tough economic times. We hate to be in recession. But not this time. This recession, unfortunately, is continuing, not from a statistical sense, but from a jobs sense. It is one-third as strong a recovery as the Reagan recovery, and we can talk about that in a minute. But here's the reason why. Washington has poured all this money into government workers and wasteful stimulus spending and they expect the economy to just jump- start. As they said, it will jump-start and consumer confidence will grow. The opposite has happened. Consumers, families are holding on to their money. They're frightened by the dangerous levels of debt in this country. They're frightened by $13 trillion of national debt America owes in publicly held debt. And businesses are frightened these days. As one of the Secretaries of Labor here in Washington said: Businesses aren't adding jobs because they're waiting to see what government can do for them; businesses aren't adding jobs because they're frightened by what government will do to them. They see an environment in Washington, proposals that dramatically increase taxes, increase regulation, increase their health care costs, increase their energy costs, that broaden government, expand regulation into almost every nook and cranny of this economy. And they look at that and they say, No, you know, we're going to delay rehiring people we laid off, hiring new ones. We're going to delay that critical investment decision, that expansion decision, the decision to buy that new piece of equipment because we don't want to be punished by Washington for adding jobs. We don't want to be punished if we go out and hire that new worker or buy that new piece of equipment. And that uncertainty, unfortunately, is an anchor around our economic recession. And that uncertainty means that American businesses are holding on to almost $2 trillion of cash, $2 trillion, normally enough to, again, start bringing us out of this recession. They're not willing to do that. They're frightened by this White House. They're frightened by Washington, D.C. They look at what's happening in Congress and these wild proposals, extreme, ideologically driven agendas, and they're saying, We're going to play it safe and stand pat with their money. Consumers are doing it because of the debt, businesses because of these terrible antibusiness, antijob, growth-killing proposals coming out of Washington, D.C. We've seen this before. We've seen this before. Economists refer to this phenomenon as ``regime uncertainty.'' What I would call it is a rational expectation. Families know America is so deep in debt, someone's got to pay it back. You can't tax the wealthy just to pay that back. You can double everyone's taxes in America. Double them this year, we would still be running a deficit. You can't tax away this problem. But businesses and families are worried that's exactly what's going to happen. Middle class, small businesses will end up shouldering a bigger and bigger burden of government. That means less money in their paycheck. They know that. Rationally, they expect it, so they're holding back. Businesses are doing the same. We saw this before as President Franklin Roosevelt's contradictory and rapidly shifting economic policies delayed recovery from the Great Depression. The U.S. was the last country to recover from the Great Depression. Today, unfortunately, this White House, this Washington is following the same formula of spending, of uncertainty, of poor governance, poor decisions, and at times, as we saw in the gulf, sheer incompetence. But again, businesses look at what they see out of the White House--higher taxes, new laws, the entrepreneurs who are frightened to hire. That's why--back to this chart. That's why the Federal Government is the only sector that has grown. And whenever there are government jobs, they only last as long as that money keeps coming out of your paycheck. But in the private sector, when a business creates a job, when a local company hires a worker, buys that new piece of manufacturing equipment, those economic benefits multiply across the community. But unfortunately, private sector in America lost over 3 million jobs. Don't take my word for it. The National Federation of Independent Businesses recently surveyed a number of their small business owners, and here's what they said: U.S. economy faces hurricane-force headwinds and the government is at the center of the storm, making an economic recovery very difficult. This is small businesses. By the way, I am Congressman Kevin Brady. I represent the Eighth District of Texas. It's a great area--11 counties from the Louisiana border through east Texas and down through Montgomery County and the Woodlands. I'm the fourth senior Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, the ranking Republican on the Trade Subcommittee, and the ranking House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee. So we've been studying these businesses and these economic numbers for some time. And what the NFIB, the small independent businesses has said, in addition, Either policymakers have no idea how to help the economy or they are intentionally committing it to unsustainable expenditure growth and deficits so large there will be no alternative but to raise taxes, a slow suicide for a dynamic economy. Just what I said, the National Federation of Independent Businesses has confirmed that it is the hurricane-force winds coming out of Washington, DC, that's holding this economy back. They go on to say this: With an unemployment rate of nearly 10 percent, the President travels the country touting the health care bill that few like, selling wealth redistribution and the need for more taxes. What should ordinary citizens and small business owners expect from all this? A growing and more dynamic economy? Not likely. Taxing success is a terrible path to growth and real investment. And adding to the misery and pessimism, massive government deficits threaten future capital availability for the private sector. So our independent businesses along Main Street say just what those of us who have been in business before say: It is Washington that's holding back this economic recovery. It's the White House that's holding back this economic recovery with this very extreme agenda. I'm going to yield in a moment to another Texan, one of our more studious members of the Joint Economic Committee, from Texas, Dr. Michael Burgess, but I want to take this quote from the Business Roundtable, because, while the NFIB represents tens of thousands of independent businesses, Business Roundtable represents businesses from every sector in America who are selling here in the United States, competing around the world to sell American as well. And here's what the Business Roundtable just said: Many regulations and legislation, both existing and proposed, exacerbate the uncertainty created by today's volatile economic environment. Virtually every new regulation has an impact on recovery, competitiveness, and job creation. Often that impact is negative. On an individual basis, most businesses can cope with each new regulation, but the collective impact on the economy is enormous and often harmful. And with the massive new health care law--this is from the Business Roundtable--with the massive new health care law and financial reform legislation looming, companies are more worried than ever about the impact new regulations and legislation will have on their operations and their bottom line. Not knowing what to expect from these pending regulations, businesses are acting cautiously to forestall any negative impact. These actions are squelching economic growth and job creation as companies are forced to freeze investment and hiring until they understand how they will be affected by these new mandates. So, despite hundreds of billions of dollars of spending and despite all this government intervention and expansion of government, the American economy is stalled because businesses--those job creators who bring us out of recessions--are frightened by Washington and these policies. They don't want to be pushed. They are holding onto almost $2 trillion of cash, and that capital is what would fuel our economic recovery. So Washington and the White House is the single largest obstacle to America's getting back on its economic feet. Joining me tonight is a Congressman from Texas who serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee. He is one of the leading Republicans there, but he also serves with me on the Joint Economic Committee. He focuses not just on health care but on businesses along Main Street. I would yield to the honorable Congressman from Texas, from the Fort Worth area, Dr. Michael Burgess.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I thank you, Congressman Burgess, for joining us tonight on trying to get the economy going, and you are so right. This recovery is so subpar. Most Americans don't realize. I talked earlier about--we are predisposed, excited about bouncing out of recessions as fast as we can, but not this time. We took a look at recessions the country has gone through since the Great Depression, and the one that's closest to it, that had the most damage, happened in the early 1980s. And if you compare how President Obama's performance was--is today versus President Reagan's in 1982, 1983, it's pretty stunning. The Reagan recovery, which had a higher unemployment rate to begin with, and if you look at three key areas, in the first three quarters after the recession ended under President Reagan, his economy grew twice as fast as the Obama recovery. If you look at the number of jobs created, it isn't even close. The first year of the Reagan recovery, the United States added 3 million jobs. We've actually lost them under President Obama. And look at this chart. You can see what the job numbers are. Reagan continues to increase. Obama, even under the best scenario right now, it is a very slow, subpar, very stagnant type of economic recovery. And similarly, the unemployment rate fell by more than 2 points under President Reagan, while it's increased under President Obama. You ask what is the difference, and it's what Congressman Burgess talked about, two things. President Obama's decided Washington would create jobs. Washington knew best. They didn't put an economic stimulus together; they put a political stimulus together. And what it's produced is government jobs and no economic recovery. It's also balanced with--offset higher tax increases, higher energy costs, the fear of new health care costs, new regulations, taxes everywhere. So job creators aren't adding jobs. The Reagan recovery is just the opposite. He created certainty for this country. They lowered taxes. They spurred investment. They told businesses, if you create jobs, you can keep them. You won't be punished; you'll be rewarded. And what did the private sector do? It created jobs. It created jobs in America. Now what we're facing is a country at a time when we have 50 million workers, almost 50 million workers looking for jobs, many of them who, almost half, have been out of work for more than 6 months. That's the longest since they started keeping numbers. Those with a high school education struggle with, gosh, it's almost 16, 17 percent unemployment. Certain ethnic categories have much, much higher unemployment rates than others, and it's because this President and this Congress, when faced with the choice between lowering taxes and creating small business jobs or spending, raising taxes, and creating government jobs, they chose the latter. And so America's recovery has stalled. It is subpar. It offers little hope to most people. It certainly hasn't, as the President claimed, jump-started the economy or restored consumer confidence. Just the opposite. We talk about taxes. We talked earlier about families so worried about this debt that this country has gotten just a staggering amount of debt under President Obama. In fact, when Republicans lost control of Congress, the annual debt to that year was about $160 million. Too high, in my view, and I think too high in most Americans' views. Now, within 3 years, that debt is almost eight times, almost nine times higher at $1.4 trillion. The Republicans' debts of a year are now the Democrats' debts of a month. Each and every month we're adding that equivalent, and that debt has exploded. And the cost, a great example. Right now, America's debt is more than 60 percent of the size of our economy. That's in the yellow warning category. If we continue to move this direction, we will be at a hundred percent of the economy by the end of this decade. And it will skyrocket to an incredible, almost 10 times the size of our entire economy, everything we make and produce in America, by the year 2084 if we stay on this path. And that debt has real cost. It means we have a bigger government for families and workers to drag around on their back. Younger people will pay more out of their paycheck to haul, drag this economy around. It creates an anchor on America's prosperity. In fact, most economists tell us that when a country's debt gets to about 90 percent of the size of their economy of everything that they produce and create, when the debt gets to 90 percent, it drags down your economy substantially by about 1 percentage point. That doesn't sound like a lot, but what that means is, instead of America growing at 3 percent a year--good, steady, strong 3 percent a year--we grow at a more anemic 2 percent a year. So you really lose a third of your economic prosperity. It puts you in the category of Europe, which has had this Big Government mentality. They've had this anchor around their economy, and it's cost them. I took a look at the five most troubled countries in Europe. We've all been following Greece's problem with their debt, but also what they call the PIIGS, and it stands really for Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain--the five most troubled European countries. If you look at their gross debt, the United States is right in the middle of them, of the five most troubled countries in Europe. If you look at the budget deficit as a percent of our economy, the United States ranks third worst as well. Third worst in gross debt, third worst in budget deficit, and we are on a bullet headed their direction. We're not necessarily in the same shape as Greece today, but we're on the trajectory, we're on the path. That's why we need to focus on education, America. Make sure people can say these things. We're on the path to calamity, financially, unless we change our ways. One thing I want to point to that Congressman Burgess talked about, people know taxes are coming. What's frightened a lot of job creators and I think a lot of just average families--certainly in Texas, in southeast Texas and east Texas that I represent--families tell me spending is out of control and it scares them. Small businesses, they look at all of these programs that House Democrats try to pass each week. They say that won't create jobs or customers. That just frightens people more. They know they're going to end up being taxed for it. And you look at there's taxes, proposed increased taxes on health care, Cadillac health care plans, on income for Americans, on capital gains, on dividends, on death taxes. There's all the private health insurance plans, pharmaceutical, medical device taxes, the cap-and- trade legislation, which is just a tax on all of the energy you use in your home and in your vehicle. They're talking about now a VAT tax, a value-added tax, which would come on top of what we have today. The value-added tax, which has worked in European countries, added on top of everything we have, it's the politician's perfect tax. It's an ideal tax. It's hidden from the public. It sounds small, and people pay for it in everything they buy. It's hidden. It's a hidden tax. Politicians can play with it any way they choose, and the public rarely knows. And people look at that and they think the Bush tax cuts, which was so helpful for our economy and our middle class, the average Texas family would have to pay $3,000 more a year if those tax cuts go away, $3,000 more every year. I know in Washington that doesn't sound like a big deal, but for most families across America, that's a lot of money, especially right now. That's all their utility bills for the year, probably throw in this cable bill as well. I took a look at a study I saw the other day about how out-of-control spending burdens our youth. We all know how much our debt has increased over the last 3 years since Democrats took control of Congress, but just look at two things. Just look at the impact of the 2008 and 2009 bailouts and stimulus. According to economist Dr. Edward Stringham of Trinity College, just the costs from those two events will cost the average 22-year-old coming out of college this year $145,000 over their working life. That's $280 a month, equivalent of a second car payment. That's the impact spending has on people, and that's just two spending bills. That's not the trillion and a half dollars of debt from last year and the year before that continue to pile up; and, again, we're $13 trillion of spending and getting higher. I know the excuse in Washington is that it's Bush's fault. Everything is Bush's fault. America's not going all the way in the World Cup was Bush's fault, I think some people believe in Washington. But if you look at where the jobs have traded in America, you can see here is when Republicans fully controlled Congress and added in their tenure 6.6 million jobs. Since Speaker Pelosi took the gavel, what we've seen is a loss of over 6 million jobs. So almost every job Republicans created, Democrats have destroyed, and the reason this is going to get even worse is because this White House and this Congress is the most job-killing, anti- business, anti-growth Congress perhaps in the history of the United States. We see this not just in tax increases and cap-and-trade and health care costs but wild provisions coming out of the House and, of course, now the drilling moratorium that is beginning to destroy jobs and lives and small businesses in the Gulf of Mexico. What's, I guess, perhaps most saddening is that along the gulf coast, many families in Louisiana and Alabama and Mississippi who are bearing the brunt of BP's oil spill and bearing the brunt of this administration's failure to contain the spill, they're the ones who are begging this President not to continue this drilling moratorium, allow our workers to go back to work because they know, as bad as the environmental damage has been, the drilling moratorium damage on their jobs and livelihood will add even more misery to their lives. We can't allow that to happen. Mr. President, I would ask you again, come down to Houston, meet with our energy workers, see whose lives and jobs you're destroying. Meet with our independent businesses. Meet with our mid-sized businesses. Meet with the companies that are out there in the gulf today wanting to go back to work, who don't want their rigs to go to other countries, who don't want the jobs to go to other countries, the equipment to go to other countries, our capital to go to other countries, and eventually our energy infrastructure to go around the rest of the world to the detriment of U.S. energy workers in America. Mr. President, while you're fund-raising in Houston, give us an hour to meet with our workers. Give us 15 minutes if you're so busy fund- raising you can't spare the time for our workers, to sit down with them. We won't have press there. You pick the workers if you choose. Although, if I were you, I would ask the average Americans who are facing a job loss, so you can listen outside the Beltway, no TelePrompters, no big speeches, just listen to our energy workers and perhaps you will see just how damaging this drilling moratorium is and will be for America. What you will hear is that they are already suffering and people are being laid off. Businesses are contemplating not being able to survive and filing bankruptcy. What you will see is that energy prices will go up as a result of your moratorium because the Gulf of Mexico produces so much of the energy we use in America. What you will hear is that we are giving more power and more energy strength to countries outside the United States, some of whom can't stand anything that America stands for, and that we'll face an energy shortage in 2011, 2012 if this drilling moratorium continues. You will hear from shallow well operators who have drilled down in the Gulf of Mexico without an incident, but now what they find is they can't get a permit to continue working so they're facing layoffs of their workers and their financial struggles. In the deep water, which has drilled 14,000 wells around the world safely, but for the BP incident, you will see that one rig is already leaving for Egypt, others are planning to leave and won't be back anytime soon, years perhaps, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years. In the meantime what do our workers do? What do those small businesses do? What do the people who do manufacturing, who do oil field services and supplies throughout the country, who reach literally into every State and almost every congressional district in America, what do those businesses do? Mr. President, we're not asking much. We're asking you to help get this economy back on track. Take off the table the drilling moratorium, end it today. Take off the table cap-and-trade and the high energy prices that it will create. Take off the table the new regulations, the new taxes. Agree to extend the Bush tax cuts. Don't raise taxes on capital and dividend investment. Lower them to get this economy going. Reassure consumers that we have a path to balance the budget. Reassure businesses they won't be punished for hiring that new worker, bringing back that old worker or hiring that new one, buying that new piece of equipment. Listen to the businesses around you who are telling you that you are the problem, this Washington Congress is the problem, because of the uncertainty, because of the taxes, because of, again, the extreme ideological agenda that is holding our economy back. Mr. President, if you want to turn this chart around, if you want to--and we'll help Democrats in Congress. We'll help you lower taxes. We'll help you take these items off the table, if you will listen to our small businesses, listen to our energy workers, listen to our families, because right now most people in America believe this Washington is so arrogant, this Congress isn't listening, that they seem to know what's best for them, that they go any route, don't read any bill, rush massive measures through without any knowledge of what their impact is, and we learn months later that they're nothing like they were promised. So average families are listening tonight. Workers are desperate for jobs. Yet they see a Congress off on cap-and-trade and all sorts of schemes instead of encouraging the job creators to create more jobs. America cannot survive this job-killing agenda much longer. As strong as we are, as resilient as we are, as quick as we are to bounce back from recessions, it's not happening this time, and Washington is the obstacle. Look in the mirror, congressional Democrats. President Obama, respectfully, look in the mirror; and if you're serious about changing this economy, if you really want to answer where are the jobs, we'll help you create those jobs where they belong, not in the government but along Main Street in every State and every community in America. By the way, it isn't enough anymore--the world has changed--it's not enough to just buy American. We have to sell American. We have to sell our products and services all throughout the world. But when we try to do that, what we find is a lot of countries have an ``America need not apply'' sign. Mr. President, you're not doing enough to tear down those signs. Give us a chance to sell American goods and services. When we get a chance to compete, we win; we create jobs; we sell America successfully. But, unfortunately, this Congress for 3 years has taken off the table any opportunity to go out and compete; and while we've voluntarily benched ourselves, the Democrats in Congress have stopped trade, while the President took a time-out, now starting to step back I think a little more so, but while we voluntarily benched ourselves, other countries--China, Europe, Canada and others--are stepping right around us, cutting agreements that create jobs and sell their products. So U.S. farmers, U.S. businesses, U.S. manufacturers, U.S. service companies, U.S. workers find themselves at a disadvantage because this White House, this Congress are more interested in special interests than in the interests of our workers, of our economy, of our jobs. So, tonight, I would say respectfully to our Speaker of the House, the majority leader of the Senate, to President Obama: if you want an answer and a partner in creating jobs, Republicans are here. We have solutions and we're ready to fight for jobs, but we've got to tackle the debt. We've got to create incentives to create jobs. We have got to stop frightening consumers, frightening workers. If we do that, America is capable of bouncing back and getting this economy on the right path again. Mr. President, work with us. Get America strong again. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. You raise great points. I would like to follow it up. I don't think this White House or Washington has a clue as to how damaging this drilling moratorium has been just on average American workers who are tied not just to the gulf, but energy production offshore that spreads out. I saw a study the other day, nearly all 50 States, nearly every congressional district risks job losses as a result of this drilling moratorium. We're already seeing companies who are redeploying their rigs to Egypt, moving their investments out of the United States, to Brazil, West Africa, the Middle East. And those rigs won't be coming back any time soon. Typical rig in the gulf in deep water has 1,500 workers tied to it, a thousand or more vendors. When they leave the gulf they don't come back for years. So we already have businesses laying off workers, moving equipment, infrastructure outside the United States, already cutting their capital budget for future investment in the United States. And it doesn't take long before you have our energy infrastructure and headquarters leaving the United States as well. There are literally tens of thousands of workers tied directly to the gulf, more than 170,000 at immediate risk of this. And yet two thoughts: One, Monday the President was in front of the White House talking about playing politics with people's jobs. Playing politics with people's jobs. That's exactly what his drilling moratorium is doing along the Gulf of Mexico. And I find it frustrating, today I picked up--or actually went online and read The Houston Chronicle. And there it said the President is coming down to Texas, to Houston August 9 to raise money for his party. And I read that, realizing that we have had a standing invitation by letter to the President asking him to come down to Houston to meet face-to-face with these energy workers, the ones whose jobs he is killing right now, and explain to them his reasoning. Listen to these American workers, Democrat, Republican, independent, it doesn't matter, they are all ages, all ethnic categories, all income categories. They just want to work. And his moratorium is destroying their livelihood. We are still waiting for an answer for that invitation. But apparently he doesn't have time to talk to our workers or to sit down face-to-face with them because he's got to raise campaign cash. So we said today, we said Mr. President, can you give us an hour to meet with these workers? Can you give us 15 minutes? You know, do you have time at all for workers in Texas along the gulf who now they see their hopes of their small business, of putting their kids through college, of keeping their home dashed because of a poorly thought out drilling moratorium that is taking an environmental disaster in the gulf and creating an economic disaster for a lot of innocent families who had nothing to do with that spill. I know you sense that in Dallas-Fort Worth, as one business from Dallas told me. He said, what small business can survive without 6 months of revenue? That's a great question, because the answer is not many. Not many at all. Maybe the big guys can. But they're going to be laying people off, they're not going to be buying from vendors. The damage is going to be wholesale. With that, I know you feel that pain in Dallas-Fort Worth, and I guess we are just frustrated that--I am at least--that the President won't at least listen to reason, come down and face our energy workers. Just have the courage to sit down with them. Give us an hour out of your busy campaign fundraising and tell them your reason. I yield to you, Dr. Burgess.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Well, I'd like to follow up on your point about unemployment benefits. The Republicans support helping people when they're down on their luck. There is no question about it. There has been extension after extension. Our point and our principle on this whole issue has been don't make matters worse for people by adding to the debt, by adding to the uncertainty about the economy, by frightening more consumers into saving more of their money. You pay for this bill. Our point was, White House, congressional Democrats, you haven't even spent one half of that stimulus money yet. You know, some of it has been allocated, but you still have nearly half of it left. Rather than waste it on what you've wasted it on, I want to talk for a second about our just creating government jobs. Why don't we pay for the unemployment benefits with that money? Let's start just stimulating private sector jobs. Again, we've lost more than 3 million since the stimulus took effect. Dr. Burgess, you know, people back home look at some of the wildly exaggerated claims from the stimulus. Do you remember all of the phantom congressional districts? This White House actually made up districts that don't exist today and credited them with certain job creations. Some of the examples of job creation were just wild--$1 million for each pair of boots. That it created jobs is crazy. We can look at some of them, you know, from the stimulus money: $71,000 to the University of Wake Forest, of taxpayer funds, to study the effects of cocaine addiction on monkeys. The University of New York at Buffalo received $390,000 in stimulus funds to conduct a study on the relationship between drinking malt liquor beer and using marijuana. One hundred people were paid $45 a day or will be paid $45 a day for 3 weeks by taxpayers to drink malt liquor to compare it with marijuana. Arizona State University received $500,000 to study the genetic difference between queen and worker ants. There was $3 million awarded for a turtle-crossing in Florida. There was $50,000 granted for a hand puppet. In the Midwest, Bloomington, Indiana, received $40,000 for 10 solar- powered trash compactors, which reminds me that New York City received stimulus funds for a homeless program, and they said, Well, we didn't ask for this money. We don't have a homeless problem. The response from Washington was, Well, get creative. I don't know, does that mean get creative in creating homeless people? With the stimulus dollars, Florida, for example, used $8 million of their funds to pay off a backlog of people who had already completed work for the State. So they used it to pay their bills, creating zero net jobs. The National Science Foundation gave funding to North Carolina University for a dance draw, which involved students' attaching wireless mice to their chests and wrists and dancing to form abstract geometric shapes on a computer. So, when the President stands at the White House and says that we need help for the unemployed, Republicans agree. We want to stop wasting stimulus money. Help people who actually need help. Stop playing politics with them. Is money for mice, studying malt liquor beer and the hand puppets more important than helping people down on their luck? We don't think so. We also don't think adding to this terrible deficit and making it tougher for consumers to have confidence in their country again helps either. I just wanted to expand on that point because I think it's a critical one for people watching tonight who really are wondering if Congress is functioning at all or listening at all. I honestly don't think this Congress is. I yield back to you, Dr. Burgess.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, no one disagrees prisoners shouldn't have cell phones. Prisons ban them already. But some prisoners have a habit of getting around the rules--even if it's a federal crime. And it's a dangerous problem. In Texas, we've had cases where prisoners on death row made threatening calls to victims, prosecutors and their families. Senator Feinstein's bill takes a baby step--but little more. We need to give our prison officials a more reliable weapon. The answer is allowing them to use devices that jam the cell signals--making it impossible for the phones to even work. We have the technology to do this and do it in a way that doesn't interfere with legitimate use--such as for communities that live nearby. I've introduced legislation, H.R. 560, the Safe Prisons Communications Act, that would create a process whereby a State or prison could petition the FCC to allow them to use the jamming devices, which are currently prohibited. This bill would save lives, and give our prisons the tools they need to really combat this problem. I ask my House colleagues to support bringing my legislation to the floor.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. The cost of the drilling moratorium in human lives and jobs, the impact on people's lives and families, is devastating. We face other immediate threats to America's energy future within the next several weeks: The Blowout Prevention Act, through the efforts of Congressman Joe Barton and others, working with Congressman Henry Waxman and others, I think has become a more manageable or acceptable bill. A real concern still exists. The Oil Spill Accountability Act, which will stop exploration in America's gulf; energy taxes that will force, or really drive U.S. energy jobs to other countries. All of this will have a huge impact. Can I talk for a moment, though, about the lives that are already being affected? We know that the lives of those 11 workers that have been lost, praying for their families and their recovery are a top priority for us. Stopping that spill from gushing further. Protecting the beaches and marshes and seabeds and trying to help the gulf States communities recover have to be our priority. The question is, do we make it worse for the gulf by a moratorium? The answer is yes. Here is the impact on jobs. Just in the short time the moratorium has been in place, I talked about how companies are redeploying thousands of workers to other countries. As National Oceans Industry Association Chairman Burt Adams said, ``There is right now no clear path for deepwater exploration companies to follow. Until such a path exists, exploration is at a standstill and more jobs will be lost.'' Aker Solutions has workers in Texas now; in Alabama. They have had to refocus their efforts on international projects to compensate for the loss of exploring in the moratorium. Their offshore services work is coming to a halt already. They have about 750 employees in Texas and Alabama, but they are now going elsewhere with their work. ATP Oil & Gas Corporation, the moratorium caused this company to stop drilling a natural gas development well and release the rig. It went away. The well would have produced 40 million cubic feet of gas daily for America. ATP estimates that they will be penalized about $30 million because of the moratorium and lose over $1 million of revenue a day. Bollinger Shipyards, family-owned and operated since 1946, employs 3,000 American workers. They say, ``In the 64 years of our existence, we have never been faced with such an uncertain future. This moratorium has created an environment leaving Bollinger Shipyards no choice but to downsize our company, thereby eliminating good-paying jobs.''

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I appreciate the gentleman from Humble and his remarks that are right on target. I have some closing remarks, but I'd like the gentleman from Houston to conclude.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. It is. Well, because they're not permitting. As you know, initially, the moratorium, over the advice of a number of scientists, was extended to both the shallow and deep waters. And then it was lifted in the shallow waters. But no permitting has really--no permit of significance has occurred. So those rigs are idle and going away. Now the whole moratorium was stayed by the Federal courts and the new moratorium now was put in place. Shallow and deep waters are essentially shut down. And, again, what that means to the rest of America is that workers' jobs are shut down, the ability to provide energy supplies for America is shut down, and our dependence on other countries for our daily energy needs is increased every day because of our wrong-headed government policy.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. It is. There is very little activity at all going on.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Well, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas talking about that gentleman from Houma and about how frustrating it is to see the government ride to the rescue of so many industries and companies and unions and special interests, but when it comes to just an average U.S. energy worker, they go out of their way to actually kill that job or put that person's livelihood or that small business's livelihood at risk. People may think, Congressman, that this is just one or two States, it doesn't affect us in our community, but nothing could be further from the truth. The International Association of Drilling Contractors, they surveyed a number of members all throughout the country. They surveyed just nine of their members, nine drilling contractors and one boat company just to ask them, Where are your workers at in America? And just nine companies found workers in almost 300 congressional districts throughout the United States of America. Just these nine companies and one boat company reached through almost 70 percent of U.S. congressional districts. It didn't include tens of thousands of other workers--oil service companies, large and small equipment manufacturers, mom-and-pop operations, oil companies. None of that's included. Just these nine drilling contractors and a boat company, almost 70 percent of the districts in America. You think, well, man, this can't be affecting our neighbors, but it is. You've got a few examples just from these few companies. You've got wire rope from Missouri and Arkansas that is at risk; workers who build radiators in Minnesota; steel and pipe in Ohio; workers from fabrics and uniform makers in Illinois; those who create protective paints from Missouri; machinery for the offshore oil companies from Michigan; engines from Illinois; corrosion prevention materials from Illinois and Minnesota; Connecticut, workers who make electrical cables; drilling equipment from Illinois; pipe protective chemicals from Ohio; drilling equipment from Kansas; background checks and security services from Wisconsin; safety footwear from Oregon; on and on and on again. These are our neighbors whose jobs are at risk, not because BP didn't follow standard safety practices but because the White House decided these energy jobs weren't worth protecting. They'll bail out the auto unions, but they won't lift a finger to protect these jobs. These are our people who are researchers and manufacturers. Some of them are roughnecks without a high school education who have the one job in America that allows them to actually raise their family, live the American Dream, and give their kids a college education. And those jobs are disappearing as we speak, and they're not going to come back any time soon. The companies are going. The rigs aren't coming back. The workers aren't coming back. The infrastructure isn't coming back. We become more dependent on foreign oil. Our energy prices for every American will go up. We'll buy more from companies that detest the United States of America. That's why we have asked the President, Come to Texas. Come see these drilling workers, these energy workers face to face and tell them why their jobs aren't important, why their livelihoods don't matter, why their small business, family-owned business, it doesn't matter if they go away or not. And these people are from all across all walks of America. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I think we probably produce about 30 percent. Much of the specialty oil is for jet fuel and a number of our fuels.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana who has been a leader on this effort both in trying to compel the Federal Government's response to local and State communities and to keep and protect their beaches and marshes but also to try to stop our energy jobs, our families in the gulf area that have been hurt from being hurt further. I yield to Congressman Scalise.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Well, thank you to the gentleman from Houston. I'd like to turn to the gentleman from Humble. You're seeing this. You have communities that stretch from the suburbs of Houston over to southeast Texas, which has some of the highest unemployment rates in the State of Texas. These are the workers tied to these companies. You know them. You visited with them. You've had town hall meetings; they're neighbors. Can you describe how disheartening this is for these workers who had nothing to do with the spill to have their jobs at risk and their livelihoods at risk?

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Thank you to the gentleman from New York. I appreciate that very much. Joining us today on this very important topic as we look at the devastating impact of this drilling moratorium on American jobs and energy workers is a Congressman from Humble, Texas, who has taken a lead on a number of key national security interests, especially the border, but lives in a community that's adversely affected. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will kindly yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, the spill in the gulf coast has produced an environmental tragedy, and obviously losing the lives of 11 American workers has been devastating for the families. Our prayers are with them. The gulf coast right now, the priority of America has to be stopping the oil from gushing, and it seems to be making progress there, protecting our beaches and marshes. But we have a new threat to the Gulf of Mexico and America, especially its workers, and this is the White House's moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. According to the Federal courts, the moratorium has been stayed. It was overly broad without much scientific basis. It didn't result in anything more safe or secure for the gulf. But nonetheless, the Secretary of the Interior has issued a new moratorium, thumbing his nose at the courts and really creating a broader moratorium that has stopped drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The impact of this is that American rigs are leaving the Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. jobs with it. Capital will soon follow and, ultimately, if the moratorium is allowed to go its full 6 months until the end of the year, we will see a significant, severe dismantling of America's energy infrastructure, future higher gas prices, and we will be ceding more of our energy independence to Middle East and foreign oil. The truth of the matter is, today, the Gulf of Mexico has been extraordinarily safe to explore for America's traditional energy, our oil and gas. Over 50,000 wells have been drilled in the Gulf of Mexico. This is the first major spill. Over 14,000 deepwater wells have been drilled around the world. This is the first major spill. And just as you don't stop all automobile production because there is a problem with one model, the White House, unfortunately, has stopped all energy production in the gulf because of the disaster with British Petroleum. And the impact on our jobs and our economy is severe. They are laying off workers today. Small businesses are struggling to survive. Rigs are being deployed overseas. Joining me today to talk about the impact to this economy is Congressman John Culberson of Houston, as well. He and I were in a roundtable last week with a number of our small, midsize, independent businesses who are already laying off workers and redeploying resources as a result of this terrible moratorium that unfortunately is turning an environmental disaster, making it worse by creating an economic disaster, not just in the Gulf of Mexico but one that will reach throughout the United States. So I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. John Culberson.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Well, thank you. And in conclusion, let me just say, these are not Republican workers. These aren't Democrat workers, these aren't Libertarian workers, these aren't tea party workers. They're just American workers. These are their jobs. These are their hopes, their dreams, and they didn't do anything wrong. They've paid for the bailouts of other industries. They're not asking for that. They just want to go back to work on the rig that's been safe. Historically, these energy workers, 50,000 wells in the gulf, this is the first accident. It wasn't their fault. You don't ground them all because of it. Yet, their lives are at stake. And our energy prices, our energy independence, revenue to our State and Federal Government, small businesses who will never survive this moratorium ever if it goes the full 6 months, did nothing wrong, whose reach is all throughout the United States of America. We have a lot at stake here. We are asking Republicans and Democrats in Congress to join us in asking the President to end this moratorium. Accept, adopt the safe practices, the newest, the safest practices proposed by experts in the industry. Allow this safe drilling to go forward. Stop sending our rigs overseas. Stop sending our jobs overseas. Stop sending our service companies overseas, our capital, our best and brightest minds, and ultimately our headquarters. Keep America going on the path of energy independence. But don't hurt these 2 million workers who are tied to this important industry. With that, I appreciate Congressman Culberson, Congressman Poe, being here tonight, as well as Congressman Scalise. These are jobs. Put our American energy workers back to work.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Already, Diamond Offshore's announced that the first rig is leaving the United States for Egypt. They are already leaving, planning to leave others for West Africa, the Middle East, Brazil, and those points. And as they made the point, these rigs, you have them for a limited amount of time. They are well sought out for around the world. And when they leave, they don't come back for years. And with them are our energy workers, the companies that support them, American businesses that sell to them and ship to them and provide those services. And as we know, the rest of the world, including state-owned enterprises in China, is now aggressively swooping in to bid for these rigs which, again, takes away our jobs and our prosperity.