Kevin Brady

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Edd Kellum Hendee, a beloved father, husband, son and brother taken from his loving family far too soon. A 1999 graduate of the Naval Academy who served his country honorably as a Lieutenant on the U.S.S. Denver during Operation Enduring Freedom, Hendee earned a Masters in English from George Mason University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. As Vice President of Acquisitions for the Starwood Capital Group, Hendee led one of the largest initial public offerings in history by balancing his keen intellect with a heart the size of Texas and his love for his Savior. Hendee also pushed the limits of his own endurance as an Ironman Triathlete. His proud parents would tell you that their son's exceptional achievements paled in comparison to his greatest accomplishment, the family that he, and the love of his life, Claudine Moore Hendee, were building with their sons, Campbell Luke, 4, and Hudson Jacob, 2, and 8- month-old daughter Reagan Reese. In addition to his wife and three children, Edd K. Hendee leaves behind his devoted parents, Nina Johnson and Edd Campbell Hendee, his sisters, Lisa Hendee Blackard and Kristin Ann Hendee, his mother-in-law Norma Jean Moore, father-in-law Gary Lee Moore, sisters-in-law Gena Moore Rush and Gabriella Lee Moore, brothers-in-law Chris Kirkland Blackard and David Rush, as well as friends and co-workers around the globe. Hendee's quick smile and infectious laugh will be remembered fondly by all who knew him. If there was one thing we could learn from him, it would be to never let a minute pass without treasuring family and making every moment with them count to the absolute fullest.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this past week was the 1-year anniversary of the so-called ``stimulus bill''--$862 billion--every dime of it borrowed from the future and from our grandchildren. When that bill was rushed through the House with almost no time to study it, we were promised as a country that it would jump-start the economy, that it would stabilize unemployment and that it would restore consumer confidence. The fact of the matter is that we have lost 4 million jobs since the stimulus was passed. Unemployment has risen dramatically. It continues to hover around 10 percent. Only 6 percent of Americans in the latest poll believe that the stimulus actually created jobs in America. Most of them feel that that extra debt has actually hampered the economy. Six percent. By comparison, I should say 7 percent of Americans still believe Elvis is alive, so you sort of know what range this credibility has for the stimulus. The fact of the matter is that stimulus wasn't designed to create jobs. It was designed to bail out government workers at the State and local levels. The truth is, if you are a government worker or if you belong to a teachers' union, you probably got a pay raise from the stimulus. If you work in construction or in manufacturing, you probably got a pink slip. The fact of the matter is the government has grown since the stimulus has passed. The jobs in the private sector--small businesses and medium-sized businesses--are disappearing and continue to disappear, and that's because it wasn't designed to create small business jobs. In fact, more money in the stimulus was set aside to buy public art in America than to help small businesses to create jobs. It shows. Too much of it was wasted. Too much of it was exaggerated claims where the White House announced jobs created in fake congressional districts. You heard about some of the waste, the fraud and the abuse in the stimulus: the $3 million turtle crossing in Florida, the $50,000 hand puppet grant in one of our States, the $4 million bike trail to Taco Bell in Massachusetts. By the way, I love Taco Bell, but that's not how our tax dollars should be spent. I'll end with this one, but this is one of those which is too hard to believe. $390,000 of your tax dollars was spent at the University of New York, in Buffalo, in a study to compare the relationship between drinking malt liquor beer and smoking marijuana. So American taxpayers have given to 100 people for 3 weeks $45 a day. To do what? According to published reports, to drink malt liquor beer and to smoke marijuana. Those types of abuses are spread, unfortunately, throughout the stimulus. It's one of the reasons there is no public confidence in it. Today, they are looking at a second stimulus. They call it a ``jobs bill,'' but it's much like the first one, just smaller. Over the district work period, I met with small- and medium-sized businesses in Orange, in Lumberton, in Lake Conner, and in the Woodlands. I asked them what they would do to create jobs, and they turned thumbs down on all this new stimulus spending. What they said is that the government is in the way. In Orange County, at a roundtable, Keith Wallace, who owns a dry cleaners there and is on the port commission said, We need to get rid of the fear--the fear of higher health care mandates and taxes, the fear of cap-and-trade, the fear of new tax increases. Marjorie Claybar, who runs a cafe in Orange County, said, We need certainty from our government. We need certainty. Sue Cleveland, over in Lumberton, Hardin County, said, There is so much fear about what is going to happen in Congress with all of these tax increases, health care, and cap-and-trade. Lori, from State Farms, said, People are simply too scared to invest. The truth is that is it. Businesses are not willing to risk their hard-earned capital. They are not going to bring back workers that they had to let go. They are not going to hire new ones or make that expansion plan as long as government continues a job-killing agenda in Washington and as long as it proposes a job-killing budget. The President's budget, in my estimation, has killed more jobs than any budget in American history--new tax increases on small businesses, on energy companies, on local real estate companies, on families, on professionals all across the board, U.S. companies that compete overseas. All of those kill jobs in America. The truth of the matter is we are not going to get out of this recession by government spending. Private enterprise, when those small businesses and medium-sized businesses start hiring again, is what will sustain an economic recovery in America. America hates being in a recession. They hate even more being in a depression. They are naturally prone to pull themselves out, but now the government is clearly the obstacle in the way of it. We see this President and Congress pursue a more extreme agenda, a bigger health care bill--the President actually announced a bigger health care bill than the Senate one--more spending, more subsidies, more tax increases. They are not listening to the American public. They are not listening to our small business community. We are in trouble. It is time to get back on track.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Roger L. Galatas as the ``King of the Court'' of the Montgomery County Performing Arts Society for 2010. Mr. Galatas is an icon in Montgomery County, Texas. For almost 20 years he worked alongside George Mitchell, the founder of the Woodlands, on Mr. Mitchell's innovative and internationally recognized development team. Roger has held many leadership roles throughout his years in The Woodlands, including former CEO and president of The Woodlands Corporation and the founding director of The Woodlands Hospital. Mr. Galatas has been instrumental in making education in Montgomery County stronger by serving as a founding director of The John Cooper School and past president of the Conroe Independent School District Board of Trustees. Galatas Elementary in the Conroe Independent School District today proudly bears his name. He is a past board of directors for Stewart Title Company of Montgomery County and the United Way of Montgomery County, a former board member of the Memorial Hermann Hospital System, former trustee and officer of the Urban Land Institute, and he has served on the Real Estate Advisory Committee of the Trust for Public Land. Mr. Galatas continues his regional leadership role as a current board member of the Center for Houston's Future and the current chair of the Strategic Planning Committee. In 2004, Mr. Galatas co-wrote a book with Jim Barlow titled ``The Woodlands, The Inside Story of Creating a Better Hometown''. The book gives the inside-scoop of how The Woodlands has grown into what it is today--a fast growing, environmentally sustainable community with a vibrant economy that he played an immeasurable role in shaping. Without question Mr. Galatas, with the support of his beautiful wife Ann, has served his community above and beyond and continues to make Montgomery County and the Houston region a better place in which to live, work and play. Madam Speaker, I am proud to call him my friend and to recognize Mr. Roger L. Galatas and his countless contributions to the people of The Woodlands and Montgomery County. I urge you to join me in recognizing Roger Galatas as the Royal ``King of the Court'' at the Second Annual Montgomery County Performing Arts Society Mardi Gras Ball that took place on February 13, 2010.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. These congressional Democrats just aren't listening. After Massachusetts, voters sent a signal on behalf of this country of no more spending, we are too deep in debt, a here-we-go- again. And when they sent the signal that government should be open and the people ought to have a say today, they snuck into this bill an increase in the debt limit to make sure there wouldn't be an embarrassing up-or-down vote on this bill the way the public demands it to be. When they were in charge, it was a different story. As the majority leader, highly respected Steny Hoyer, said, Democrats, raising the debt limit is immoral. This policy of borrow and spend is not only irresponsible, it's immoral and it must stop. He was exactly right. When our Speaker--again, highly respected Speaker--took that gavel 3 years ago, the debt limit in America was $29,000 for every man, woman, and child. Today, just 3 years later, it's $45,000 for each one of you, and it's going up and up and up each year. And I will tell you, when they say, No, no, the Republicans, Democrats share the blame, Democrats have incurred twice as much of that debt to date, and it's going to skyrocket under their control. And what's even more frustrating is, with the new President's budget, that deficit is going to triple over future years. And I will finish with this. PAYGO. PAYGO is to fiscal responsibility what ethics is to the former Governor of Illinois, Mr. Blagojevich. PAYGO, since it's been put in place 3 years ago, our deficits have increased tenfold. I urge defeat of this bill.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Frank ``Poncho'' Roberts, a dedicated husband, father, and community servant on the occasion of his graduation from Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas. Mr. Roberts graduates with a bachelor of fine arts degree in theatre. Poncho Roberts was born to Frank and Daisy Roberts on February 19, 1932, in Madisonville, Texas. He spent part of his childhood in Huntsville, but later moved to Houston and graduated from Austin High School in 1949. After graduation, he worked for the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. He spent most of his career working for the company at NASA as a craftsman and supervisor. Poncho fondly recounts his days working as a contractor for the space agency having seen some of its earliest missions from Gemini to Apollo. Upon retirement in 1986, Poncho and his wife, Sugar, moved back to Huntsville to be close to their children. With a heart for serving others and a joyful, outgoing personality, Poncho was called on to help with various community service projects. He was the driving force behind the effort to build the Huntsville Aquatic Center, which has given the youth of Huntsville a place to swim and has allowed for the development of the Huntsville Lakers Swim Team. Poncho has volunteered many hours of his time to work with the Huntsville-Walker County Chamber of Commerce working at the Sam Houston Statue and Visitors Center. He is a member of the Huntsville Rotary Club and leads the ``I Like Me!'' program that distributes books to children to promote literary and character building. Poncho is also a deacon at University Heights Baptist Church in Huntsville. Poncho is well known for the penchant he has for the fine arts, especially theatre, and he has been a part of many plays performed by the Huntsville Community Theatre. Of all his accomplishments, Poncho is most proud of being a loving husband and father. Poncho and Sugar have been married for 58 years. They have raised two children, a son, Frank Jr., and a daughter, Debbie. They have eight grandchildren and two great-grandchildren with another on the way. Madam Speaker, Poncho Roberts has dedicated his life to being a family man and to serving his community. He is proof that education is a lifelong endeavor. It is such an honor to represent good people like Poncho in the U.S. House of Representatives. I urge you to join me in congratulating him on his graduation. That's Togetherness, One More Time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear our Democrat friend's newfound interest in paying for the war. That hasn't always been the case. Here is what the current majority leader said on this House floor in 2004 when the debt limit was proposed to be raised and we were at war. What now-majority leader Mr. Hoyer said: raising the debt limit is immoral. Its disastrous consequence has threatened to cripple our future prosperity and haunt future generations. He said this policy of borrow and spend is not only irresponsible, it is immoral, and it must stop. We are literally mortgaging our future. These are their words, not ours. The truth of the matter is, what we are voting on today is a down payment, a two-step, $2 trillion increase in our debt, two-step, $2 trillion increase in our debt. And what it means for American families is that the day Nancy Pelosi took the gavel to become Speaker of this House, every man, woman and child in America owed $29,000 in debt. Today, as a result of this vote and next year's debt limit, every person in America will owe $45,000 in public debt. Three years, we've increased to $45,000 in public debt. It is responsible to pay our bills; it's irresponsible to keep going into debt and asking for more credit while we do it. It's time to stop spending.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. In addition, I am disappointed that today's bill doesn't do more to establish certainty for users of the program here and abroad through an extension that is longer than a mere year. I and Mr. Camp have been seeking a 2-year extension. Madam Speaker, I support this bill because I don't want the remaining preferences to lapse, but we can and should do better.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have long been a supporter of our preference programs because they allow valuable inputs to enter the United States duty free, helping our manufacturers and their employees. At the same time, trade preference programs are an important tool to help developing countries break into the international market. Over many years, Congress has worked on a bipartisan basis to develop trade preference programs that have provided a vital economic boost to many developing countries. But effective trade preferences are just one step on a developing country's journey to becoming a full player in the international market, which a country achieves through a permanent, reciprocal trade agreement with the United States. Chile, Singapore and the CAFTA countries all graduated from trade preferences into these more mature relationships, giving them full, permanent duty-free access to the U.S. market. This is a significant benefit over the partial, temporary access provided by our preference programs, sending a strong signal that helps attract necessary investment and capital into the partner country. For the United States, the benefits of reciprocal trade are obvious. American workers and businesses get a level playing field as a result of these countries opening their markets to U.S. exports. As a result, U.S. exports to these countries surge and those growing exports support American jobs. We can quickly realize similar benefits by implementing the pending trade agreements with Colombia and Panama, two more countries that are anxious to move from a one-way relationship to one that levels the playing field for American workers. I am frustrated to once again be faced with extending preferences for these countries instead of voting on a more permanent relationship that benefits all of us. Now there are many countries that aren't yet ready to take the step from preferences to a free trade relationship, and for these countries effective trade preference programs are the right policy. To that end, we must design our preference programs with eligibility criteria that challenge countries to improve their laws while encouraging investment. The current eligibility criteria provide the right balance, allowing the U.S. on many occasions to use these criteria to prompt improvements in conditions in several countries and further economic development. At the same time, when a country does not abide by the criteria in the preference programs, we must take notice and even eliminate benefits if necessary. Otherwise, the effectiveness of the criteria is undermined. In this regard, I have been watching the situation in Ecuador for several years, and I'm deeply troubled by what I am seeing. When Congress last extended ATPA in 2008, we added an additional statutory review requirement for Bolivia and Ecuador because of our concerns about their compliance with the eligibility criteria. This past June the Obama administration completed this review. The administration found that Bolivia was not complying with the eligibility criteria in the ATPA program, which is why Bolivia is no longer eligible for benefits. The administration also noted several serious concerns about Ecuador. In particular, the administration cited Ecuador's withdrawal from the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes and Ecuador's unilateral decision to raise many of its tariffs to levels above its WTO bindings. Since the administration's report, there have been further troubling developments in Ecuador. The country has announced that it will withdraw from its bilateral investment treaty with the United States, and the investment climate continues to cause concern. In addition, President Correa has made questionable statements with regard to Ecuador's respect for intellectual property rights. Moreover, negotiations to replace U.S. access to the Manta air base are still unresolved. Together with many other Members, I remain extremely concerned about the situation in Ecuador. Therefore, I am disappointed that the bill before us today does not retain the requirement in current law that the President report to Congress on the situation in Ecuador. I believe that this report provides us an opportunity to keep a careful eye on Ecuador and its compliance with the eligibility criteria. But just as important is the fact that the reporting requirement is enormously important as a signal to Ecuador--a message that this Congress is watching Ecuador closely.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks my district received as part of H.R. 3288--Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Kevin Brady, Texas 8th Congressional District Bill Number: H.R. 3288--Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 Project: 1-69 Texas Environmental Studies, TX Account: Interstate Maintenance Discretionary, Federal Highway Administration Requesting Entity: Alliance for I-69 Texas, Texas Department of Transportation Address of Requesting Entity: 1200 Smith, Suite 700, Houston, TX 77002 The original I-69 project began in 1991 and involves long-planned upgrades of US 59, 277 and 281 to interstate standards to increase motorist safety and mobility in the Houston and East Texas region. It is, thankfully, no longer included in the ill-fated Trans Texas Corridor. The original project enjoys the support of a broad collaboration of mayors, county judges, economic development groups, chambers of commerce and transportation officials from dozens of Texas communities, including several in the Eighth Congressional District. The $500,000 I requested on behalf of the Texas leaders of the I-69 coalition will provide the Texas Department of Transportation funding to complete the necessary environmental studies to begin construction on these much needed upgrades. This bill also credits me, four of my colleagues in the House and our two distinguished Senators as requesting an additional $1.5 million under the Interstate Maintenance Discretionary and the Surface Transportation Priorities accounts. I appreciate the support of my colleagues and the Committee for this important project. I know the additional funds are greatly needed. However, in all honesty, the other members deserve credit for these funds since I submitted only the original $500,000 funding for the environmental studies. Requesting Member: Congressman Kevin Brady, Texas 8th Congressional District Bill Number: H.R. 3288--Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 Project: The District Capital Cost of Contracting, Montgomery County, TX Account: Buses and Bus Facilities, Federal Transit Administration Requesting Entity: The Brazos Transit District (The District) Address of Requesting Entity: 1759 N. Earl Rudder Freeway, Bryan, Texas 77803 This request helps provide an important transportation service to over 700,000 Montgomery County commuters each year through four Park- and-Ride facilities. It also helps provide regular van service for East Texas veterans to VA facilities in the region. Through these services, the funding also helps reduce congestion along Interstate 45 and helps the region meet its clear air goals. The $1,000,000 included in this bill reduces the equipment costs of providing these transportation services. Requesting Member: Congressman Kevin Brady, Texas 8th Congressional District Bill Number: H.R. 3288--Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 Project: Pulmonary Hypertension Awareness Program Account: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Requesting Entity: Pulmonary Hypertension Association Address of Requesting Entity: 801 Roeder Rd., Suite 400, Silver Spring, MD 20910 I have supported strengthening Pulmonary Hypertension (PH) education for over ten years; and for this reason and for the third year in a row, I have requested funding to strengthen and continue a successful partnership between the non-profit Pulmonary Hypertension Association and the Centers for Disease Control. PH is a serious and often fatal condition where the blood pressure in the lungs rises to dangerously high levels. In PH patients the walls of the arteries that take blood from the right side of the heart to the lungs thicken and constrict. As a result, the right side of the heart has to pump harder to move blood into the lungs, causing it to enlarge and ultimately fail. This request will allow the partners to continue to develop a pulmonary hypertension awareness program to better educate the medical community and the public about the disease, and lead to earlier diagnosis and longer life spans. The $250,000 included in this bill for this project will be allocated to continue two components in the fight against pulmonary hypertension: the PHA Online University, a curriculum-based website for medical professionals, and a significant expansion of PHAware, a grassroots media campaign. I also appreciate the Committee's support through report language encouraging further collaboration and research efforts on pulmonary hypertension within government agencies. The efforts of these organizations on issues including lung transplantation, the establishment of a PH Clinical Research Network and the increase in pulmonary hypertension diagnoses related to the abuse of methamphetamine will further our understanding of this disease. Requesting Member: Congressman Kevin Brady, Texas 8th Congressional District Bill Number: H.R. 3288--Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 Project: SHSU Regional Crime Lab Account: Office of Justice Programs, Byrne Discretionary Grants Requesting Entity: Sam Houston State University Address of Requesting Entity: 1803 Avenue I, Huntsville, TX 77341 Law enforcement agencies in rural communities experience long waits and backlogs when requesting services from major cities like Houston. This request allows Sam Houston State University--one of the nation's foremost criminal justice universities--to use its expertise in forensic science to begin operations of the Regional Crime Laboratory started with funding I previously secured. This lab will provide important forensics services to local law enforcement such as identification of controlled substances, toxicology screening and fingerprint matching. The lab will be able to service communities in a 75-mile wide area. The $1,000,000 included in this bill for this project will be allocated to staff the SHSU Regional Crime Lab and make it operational for serving regional law enforcement agencies. Specific budget items include: capital outlays (54%); salaries and benefits for laboratory staff (37%); lab supplies (8%); and subcontracts for staff training (1%).

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that when Republicans lost control of Congress, the deficit was $160 billion, too high. Today, just 2\1/2\ years later, it is nearly nine times that high. It is greater than all the deficits in 1 year and all the deficits under President Bush. We are on an unsustainable path where our children and grandchildren will never be able to afford what is being spent today. And I will remind, too, my friend from Massachusetts that when Democrats took that gavel, Speaker Pelosi pledged she would pay every dime of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly 3 years later, they haven't paid for a dime of those wars. Let me make a point here. The reason I think Congress' approval ratings are lower than Bernie Madoff's is that we keep pitting Americans against other Americans. In this case, we keep pitting teachers and research workers and local taxpayers, you hear the numbers, against our local real estate workers and our local construction workers. This bill will seriously damage our ability to create jobs and raise property values at the local level. Our real estate partners, the real target of this bill, the real losers in this bill, these are average people who build our local facilities, who create construction jobs, who are the backbone of our economy. And in this case, they will have their taxes nearly tripled. It will result in lower property values and fewer jobs at home. What it really does is it punishes people who put in sweat equity and work for decades to bring it about. And it forces them to go to the bank and take debt, to seek capital at a time when there is no bank and no lending available. So we have taken one of the toughest parts of our economy, commercial real estate, and punished them. It is a false choice, as the gentleman from Michigan has said. It's the wrong choice. This is a bad deal.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, well, there is no question we all support extending the Republican State and local sales tax deduction put in place, restored by a Republican Congress. I am pleased to extend the teachers' classroom supply deduction, again, something created and fostered under a Republican Congress, the same with the renewable energy credits, much of which expanded under a Republican Congress. But make no mistake, this isn't about paying for these issues. This Congress, this White House is paying for nothing these days; $700 billion, $800 billion stimulus bill, not a dime paid for. All the new spending, TARP II, second part of the bailout, not a dime paid for. Two weeks ago they pass out this bill, a quarter of a trillion dollars out of this House, to help doctors with their Medicare reimbursements. Guess how much is paid for? Not a dime, zero. This new fiscal responsibility, while we appreciate it, you shouldn't achieve it by raising taxes and punishing our local real estate and construction people. I do take exception. We were told today, well, don't worry about it. It's only 10 percent of our local real estate and construction jobs, only 10 percent. Well, that's $4.5 trillion of local and real estate investment along Main Street America. Here, I guess they think we can just sacrifice one out of every 10 local construction jobs. We will just sacrifice one out of every 10 local real estate jobs. That's just collateral damage up here. It's real damage back home. Picking winners and losers, rewarding those, our teachers, our research workers, those who are sending their kids to college, and taking away jobs from Main Street America in real estate, construction from those who build our communities is a false choice. The gentleman from Michigan is correct: this is a false choice that damages our economy, that's dead on arrival in the Senate, as it should be. We ought to be working together finding a way to help people, not picking winners and damaging jobs in America today. No wonder we face 10 percent unemployment.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise and strongly oppose this bill. Encouraging research jobs on the one hand while killing local real estate and construction jobs on the other makes no economic sense. In making one of our most vulnerable sectors, commercial real estate, which faces the next real crisis in America, making that situation worse is going to kill jobs in this country. That type of thing is the reason that this new Congress and this White House has failed to get the American economy going. Let me explain. There are parts of this bill that all of us support, including cracking down on tax evaders but encouraging companies to keep research and development jobs; letting States, local taxpayers, write off the State and local sales taxes. And our State, I'm proud to say, we fought to restore this. It saves our taxpayers $1.2 billion a year, creates 22,000 jobs. That's fairness. In helping teachers write off, for example, their supplies they pay out of their pocket to help educate their students, we all agree on that. That's not the question. But what they do in this bill as well, they target some of our most basic companies at home. They say they're going after those Wall Street managers of your money, the ones who have their feet up on the desk who just shuffle money back and forth and make billions of dollars. That's what they say they're aiming at. What they're hitting is Main Street, our real estate partnerships. These are our local companies that build our office buildings, apartments, shopping centers, movie theaters, our industrial parks. There are no abuses in this. These are the people who create jobs at home. This bill increases their tax, almost triples their taxes, and these are people who put in sweat equity for 15 years, 20 years. Only if they get it right do they make a dollar back on all of their hard work. This is who they nearly triple the taxes on. These are the people, 1.2 million, traditional real estate partnerships, who will pay the price if this bill passes, because this makes no economic sense and damages jobs. That's why this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate, deader than a doornail, because with this economy, we ought to be creating jobs and not killing jobs.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. We have short memories around here. While I know it's sort of popular to blame President Bush for everything from acid reflux to Tiger Woods' car accident, the truth of the matter is we wouldn't be here today if President Clinton had not vetoed the full permanent repeal of the death tax once and for all for America. A Republican Congress sent him that bill saying the only peace of mind we can give to family farmers and small businesses is to put this death tax to death. But because of his actions and irresponsible veto, today we see a high tax rate and low exemptions and real damage upon America's family farms and small businesses. We talk about fiscal responsibility. I just heard some more rhetoric about that. Now, let me point out that while Republicans, unfortunately, in responding to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and creating a Homeland Security Department, I believe, while well- intentioned in defense of this country, also spent too much money. And you can tell from these red bars how once that mistake was made, the deficit, year after year, went down. In the first year Democrats had control of Congress the deficit went from 162 to 459. It tripled in 1 year that House and Senate, they tripled the deficit. This year it is almost nine times higher than when Republicans left Congress. So, when I hear a lecture on fiscal responsibility, after a $1.4 trillion deficit, a quarter of a trillion dollar unpaid bill 2 weeks ago for the doctor fix, an unprecedented spending spree, bailouts, and PAYGO rules that have less credibility than all the fake stimulus jobs we hear about, please, no lectures. And when you talk about statutory PAYGO, I'll remind Members how many violations of PAYGO have occurred. Two dozen of them in the last couple of years by this Congress, supposedly fiscally responsible. And you know the way they got around it? In some cases they used the same PAYGO 25 different times. That's like mortgaging your house 25 times to the bank as collateral. They used some PAYGO 10 different times. In fact, one time, to try to look like they balanced the bill, this Congress, on this floor, with this leadership, decreed that there will be no terrorist attacks for the next 5 years so that this bill can look like it was paid for. So, please, no lectures on fiscal responsibility from a Congress and a White House that is ruining this country, driving us so deep into debt I don't know how our grandchildren will ever get out of it. I think the main point today that I will refute as well is that this is the only option. The truth of the matter is that there is a bipartisan bill that has support of some 39 or so Members of this House, supported by so many of the groups, family farms, small businesses, local nurseries, home builders, and retail shops, that does have support in the House and in the Senate. That's the compromise that should be on the floor today. That's the way we make sure we help our family small businesses. And let me tell you, too, whenever Washington says we're only going after a few of the wealthy, grab your pocketbooks because we've seen this run before. And the alternative minimum tax was supposed to tax 100 or so of the wealthiest Americans, as we just heard. Today that tax can grab almost 24 million Americans. We're going to see every year more and more family farms, more and more small businesses trapped, damaged, destroyed by this death tax unless this bill is voted down. And we have other options that really can help. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would say while I disagree strongly with some of those assertions, I do very much appreciate the work that Mr. Pomeroy has done on this bill. It is an issue that concerns so many of us. I am hopeful we can still come together on a bipartisan compromise that can pass this House, and for many of us who have as our goal full and permanent repeal of the death tax, I hope someday to work with him on that as well.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. The two questions we ought to ask ourselves when we consider this bill, besides the principle underneath it, which is should family farms and small businesses work their whole life, build up a nest egg and have Uncle Sam swoop in when they die and take up nearly half of it themselves, is this supported by the people whom you say it will help, and will this bill or can this bill become law? As to the first case, it is not supported by the organizations that have worked the longest and the hardest on the death tax. And we have, again, 49 organizations who support a bipartisan compromise who unfortunately cannot support this bill, small businesses, family farms, local newspapers, local marketing groups, equipment manufacturers, local builders and auto dealers. We have local convenience stores and beer wholesalers, our cattlemen, just the people who make up the fabric of our local economies believe this bill will not help them and will not help them enough. But the other thought is, will this bill become law? And the answer, unfortunately, is no. H.R. 4154 is dead on arrival in the Senate. Even if it squeaks through the House with whatever arm twisting must be done, it will be dead on arrival in the Senate. Earlier this year the Senate voted on a bipartisan basis for a far more generous estate tax relief package. The Lincoln-Kyl amendment to the Senate's budget resolution, which mirrors the Berkley-Brady amendment that was not allowed to be offered today, provides a considerably higher exemption and a more reasonable 35 percent rate. It's very unlikely that the Senate is going to take a break from health care and other issues to pass a bill that they have serious concerns about, and especially because they have serious concerns as well about this PAYGO sham language that is attached. Also, recent press reports make clear that key Senators, even Democratic Senators, believe that this bill, H.R. 4154, is insufficient. According to a December 22 article in the BNA, it's quoted that the House plan to make permanent the 2009 estate tax rate exemption levels falls far short of what is needed in the long run and quotes key Senators in that Chamber. So, I think our goal ought to be helping the people we say we're trying to help: family farmers and small businesses. And we ought to be pushing a bill forward that can be accepted by the Senate, make it to the President's desk, and provide that certainty that helps these people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds. And I would further point out that polls consistently show 70 percent of Americans support the complete and full repeal of the death tax because it is un-American for this country to swoop in and take up nearly half of what you have spent a lifetime building up and wanting to hand down to your children and grandchildren. With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) who has worked on the death tax issue as a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield myself 15 seconds. I would point out that more and more Americans will be ensnared in the death tax because it is not indexed, like the AMT. And I would point out, we would not be here today if President Clinton had not vetoed the death tax repeal in 1999.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this bill. Can you imagine working your whole life to keep your family farm or to build up a small business, and then when you die Uncle Sam swoops in and takes up as much as half of all you've spent a lifetime working for? That's what the death tax does. It is wrong, it is immoral, and in many ways un-American. This was brought home to me early in my first term in Congress. I had a family nursery in Texas. They have three nurseries. The parents had created it and built it up. Two of the three kids were working in it that day, and they just sat down with a pen and paper. They showed me the value of their nursery, talked about the death tax, and worked it through. And the bottom line was that if they could take out enough insurance on their parents' deaths, and because they're out of debt, if they could go back to the bank and borrow enough money, they might be able to pay their death tax bill. Think of what they're saying: If we make enough money off our parents' death and we can borrow enough money, the government might let us keep our family business. The government might let us keep our family business. That's why the death tax is wrong, and that's why it is in many cases, if not all, simply un-American. Today we have a bill that is the result of hard work by my friend from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), but I object because I believe we can do better. Some say at the end of the day if this bill passes, it will only impact a few estates. But the truth is, when it passes, still, the number one reason family farms and small businesses will not be passed down to the next generation is the death tax; and the number one reason the fastest growing number of entrepreneurs, women, and minority-owned businesses will not be passed down to the next generation. And this is the first generation of wealth building. It will be the same death tax. While it is fun to hear them talk about Bill Gates and Donald Trump and George Soros, the people most hurt by this tax are Bill the farmer or Donna the florist or George the funeral director, real people building wealth in our communities who oppose this death tax. These are not the aristocracies that are being referred to in this debate. We are told that this bill will be permanent and provide certainty. Well, it does create a permanently high tax rate and a permanently destructive tax rate; 45 percent is simply too high. And because, like the AMT, it is not indexed for inflation, it is certain to ensnare more and more family farms and small businesses in future generations. We have seen this play before. The alternative minimum tax was created to tackle and address only 100-plus of the wealthiest Americans in the United States, but because it wasn't indexed for inflation, today it would impact 24 million middle class Americans. We are going to see that same creep, those same small businesses and middle American families affected by this death tax in future generations. We are told, and I think sincerely, that this is the best we can do as a Congress. I don't believe it is. I so much appreciate Mr. Pomeroy's efforts. I know a lot of the groups that make up the death tax coalitions that are working to eliminate the death tax or find a reasonable compromise. They appreciate what he is doing as well. But we have to do better. And don't take my word for it. If you listen to the groups most intimately damaged by the death tax, from our Farm Bureau to our National Federation of Independent Businesses, from our grocers and funeral directors, from local newspapers and other groups, they have not given support to this bill because it still leaves intact the third highest death tax rate in the developed world, and it damages them too greatly. My thought is that rather than place on the floor, as Democrats did, unfortunately, a partisan bill that is supported by none of the groups most affected, that we ought to have offered a bill by the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) and others that has the strong support of 49 national organizations and bipartisan support of the bill. Unfortunately, it was not allowed as an amendment to the bill and it would be ruled out of order as a motion to recommit, so we don't have an opportunity to come together as a Congress on this issue. At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Yielding myself 15 seconds, I would like to submit for the Record a list of 49 organizations from family farmers to small businesses to local funeral parlors in support of Congresswoman Berkley's bill and amendment. Family Business Estate Tax Coalition American Farm Bureau Federation; American Foundry Society; American Hotel & Lodging Association; American International Automobile Dealers Association; American Rental Association; American Wholesale Marketers Association; Associated Builders and Contractors; AMT--Association for Manufacturing Technology; Association of Equipment Manufacturers; Comporium Group/Rock Hill Telephone Company; Financial Executive International's Committee on Private Company Policy. Food Marketing Institute; Heating, Airconditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International; Independent Community Bankers of America; Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America; International Franchise Association; Marine Retailers Association of America; Mason Contractors Association of America; Mortgage Bankers Association; National Association of Convenience Stores; National Association of Manufacturers; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors. National Automobile Dealers Association; National Beer Wholesalers Association; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Electrical Contractors Association; National Federation of Independent Business; National Funeral Directors Association; National Grocers Association; National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association; National Newspaper Association; National Restaurant Association; National Roofing Contractors Association. National Small Business Association; National Telecommunications Cooperative Association; National Utility Contractors Association; Newspaper Association of America; North American Die Casting Association; Plumbing-Heating- Cooling Contractors--National Association; Policy and Taxation Group; Printing Industries of America; S Corporation Association; Society of American Florists; The Associated General Contractors of America; The Bowling Proprietors' Association of America. At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to one of the outstanding members of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield myself, Mr. Speaker, as much time as I may consume. I know Washington takes great delight in reading from comments from the very wealthy who, by the way, usually find loopholes by accountants and have whole planning teams to make sure they don't pay these taxes. But I like to listen to those who are actually struggling with these death taxes, our small businesses, our family farms and our local manufacturers who have got a lot of challenges. I have a letter from the National Federation of Independent Business which has weighed in on almost every key issue dealing with the impact on small businesses and independent businesses. Like me, they do appreciate the work that Mr. Pomeroy has done on this issue. But just quoting from their letter: ``While well intentioned, H.R. 4154 is an incomplete solution. A $3.5 million exemption per person and a 45 percent rate do not provide adequate protection for many small businesses. In addition, the $3.5 million exemption is not indexed for inflation, meaning that protection from the estate tax will erode each year.'' Our manufacturing groups, for example, National Association of Manufacturers, in a letter they wrote, again, yesterday, say: ``The NAM, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Nation's largest industrial trade association representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 States, urges you to oppose H.R. 4154,'' the bill we have before us today. ``While NAM appreciates efforts to provide certainty by making estate tax rates permanent, we do not view a 45 percent rate or an exemption that is not indexed to inflation as efforts that will achieve significant reform.'' And finally, the American Farm Bureau Federation, again, family farmers all throughout this country are involved, again, in trying to help them keep those family farms, pass them down to the next generation, say that the current estate tax exemption is $3.5 million per person and the top tax rate is 45 percent under this bill. This exemption level is inadequate to protect our Nation's farms and ranches from estate taxes and causes financial burden of complicated and expensive estate tax planning. It is clear while we may claim on this floor that this is a bill great for family farms and great for small businesses, and only taxing the wealthy, our family farms, our small businesses, our local manufacturing companies say it does not. National Federation of Independent Business, Washington, DC, December 2, 2009. Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's leading small business advocacy organization, I am writing to share our views about H.R. 4154, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009. With the current estate tax law expiring after 2010, H.R. 4154 provides certainty to help small business owners plan for the tax and maintains stepped-up basis. While well- intentioned, H.R. 4154 is an incomplete solution. A $3.5 million exemption per person and a 45 percent rate do not provide adequate protection for many small businesses. In addition, the $3.5 million exemption is not indexed for inflation, meaning that protection from the estate tax will erode each year. NFIB has always supported full repeal of the estate tax as the one solution that will protect all small businesses from this tax. Short of that, NFIB has supported H.R. 3905, a bipartisan compromise bill which provides an exemption level of $5 million per person and a rate of 35 percent. Much of the cost of the estate tax occurs before the tax is levied because the threat of the tax forces families to pay for expensive estate planning to ensure their business stays with the family. Such costs are a drain on the finances of many already struggling small businesses, and relief along the lines of H.R. 3905 would provide additional protection for many small businesses. NFIB is encouraged that the House of Representatives is acting on this important small business issue by providing long-term estate planning certainty. We look forward to working with Congress to improve the legislation so that it meets the needs of America's small businesses. Sincerely, Susan Eckerly, Senior Vice President, Public Policy.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the lead Republican on the Small Business Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be a co-chairman of the Death Tax Coalition in the U.S. House, those of us who understand the destructive levels of this tax on our family farms and small businesses in America. Can you imagine working your whole life risking your money and your time working your weekends to either build your family farm or to start your business only to find out when you die, Uncle Sam swoops in and takes nearly half of all you spent a lifetime building up, takes half of what you had hoped to give to your children and grandchildren? That is the death tax in America. It is the wrong tax. It is the wrong people at exactly the wrong time. The only real solution to it is to fully and permanently repeal it, to solve it once and for all, to give family farms, small businesses, women and minority-owned businesses the peace of mind of knowing that they can hand down to their children the nest egg they have spent a life of toil, risk and taxation to build up. That is what Republicans support. That is what we are going to vote for today. And it is time to bury the death tax once and for all. As they set the rules for this debate today, we naively think that Congress is a debate of ideas, the best ideas win. Unfortunately, the American public won't get to hear that debate or have that choice today because the Democrat majority did not allow an amendment, a bipartisan amendment, a better idea in how we help our family farms and small businesses survive. This amendment was offered, a bipartisan one, by Congresswoman Shelley Berkley of Nevada, myself, Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, and Congressman Devin Nunes of California. And it's an amendment supported by the groups that are most damaged by this death tax, small businesses, family farms, local printers and grocers and others. And what it did is provide a $5 million exemption for the death tax and a below-35 percent tax rate in permanence. This is an amendment to a bill that has strong bipartisan support. It is has 37 cosponsors, and it has strong support from around the country. So when people say today, this is the best we can do? No, it's not. It's not the best we can do. Given a choice, we have to do better for our family farms and small businesses. And there is no support for the overall bill from small businesses, family farms, from our local retailers, none at all. So rather than place on the floor a bipartisan bill that had broad support, they chose to offer a partisan bill that has no support. It is time to solve this problem. It's time to bury the death tax once and for all. It's time to hear better ideas on this floor that can help create jobs in America, help generations go forward, and reward the people who work the hardest, work the longest, and work the smartest in hopes of handing nest eggs down to their children. The death tax is not just unfair; it is immoral and un-American.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this conversation is not about doctors. It's about a budget gimmick to try to hide the true cost of Nancy Pelosi's health care takeover. There is a right way and there is a wrong way to help our doctors get paid fairly under Medicare. But because not one dime of this bill is paid for, it forces Americans to borrow another $279 billion from China and pass the bill of debt down to our grandchildren to pay, all to hide the cost of this health care reform in Washington. This is irresponsible, and it's the wrong way. I support the Republican alternative. We give our doctors cost-of-living increases, but we pay for them by chasing frivolous lawsuits that drive up the costs of medicine out of our system. So we help our doctors and we help the patients at the same time. And I want to finish with this: This Medicare, the way we pay our doctors, it's a great taste, sort of a look into the future of what happens when the government is going to run your health care decisions. Not paying doctors fairly is how Medicare rations care today, and it's the main reason seniors have difficulty finding a doctor. This is a peek into the future when Medicare makes budget decisions about your life and death medical decisions. This is the future, and it's frightening.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 909, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''