Kevin Brady

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I think you make an important point there because that issue wasn't decided on what was best for the children. That was just a political agenda that was being exercised. And yet you have--I'm one of these believers that we need to invest in and lift up public schools all across this country with accountability, with resources, helping them do their job. But while we're improving the very worst of these schools, like in Washington, DC, you have to give those parents a choice, an option of getting their kids into a school, because if you're going to take, 5, 6, 7, 8 years to get a school up to standards, look, when you have little kids like we do, in kindergarten and fourth grade, my wife and I do, every year matters. You can't have them in a school that's still failing for 5 or 6 or 7 more years. And those parents who last week were told, yes, we're going to continue it, and then a day later it was yanked out from under them, you know, all they said was, all they were saying is, while you improve our schools, give us a chance to get our kids a better education while you're doing it. So trying to do it both at one time. But we've seen this a lot. Common sense, I think, principles and values, that seem to be ignored. Last week, the Joint Economic Committee held a hearing with the Special Inspector General over the bailout funds. And he's very direct. And, basically, Barofsky, former prosecutor, respected, a lot of credibility, he said--he made two points at the hearing, Congressman Carter. One was that he said, despite their repeated requests to the Treasury Department that all the money from the bailout be accounted for, and then banks put in place controls so you can continue to monitor, again, Treasury Department, time and time has said no, we'll not do that. We don't want to know and hold accountable where those bailout dollars are going. And, secondly, they had just finished this, Inspector General, Special Inspector General, just finished a review of this new, some of the new programs, including taking these bad loans off the banks' books. And they said, it is ripe for abuse, collusion, conflict of interest, money laundering. They made a series of commonsense recommendations on how to prevent that from occurring. And to date, the Treasury Department still has not agreed to those commonsense protections of our tax dollars. And we're seeing that, whether it is in lower income people who want their kids to have a good education, whether it is taxpayers who just want to know where their bailout money went, and they want to prevent abuses before they begin, whether it is--a lot of Americans are not convinced that a government-run health care system is the way to go in America, but they already feel like it's being shut, they're being shut out and it's being rammed through. Same with this global warming cap-and-trade scheme. Again, rushed to the floor, rushed through Congress. We know, from the AIG bonuses and that fiasco of legislation that was on the House floor, when Congress rushes these things to the floor, when there is no debate, when it's shut off, when there's a gag rule where we can't even read the stimulus bill, and the public doesn't know about it, at the end of the day, America loses. And I think that that's one of the reasons, Congressman, that this President, for all his personal skills, for all, I think, his sincere desire to do a good job, his poll numbers, while high, are the most polarizing in four decades. The country has never been this divided over what direction we're going. He can play, I think, a more important role in leading. And I just hope that he's not, you know, manipulated or directed by those around him; that he's able to step forward, because I think there is an opportunity to work together. But so far, the first 100 days have been very, very disappointing from that regard. And I would yield back.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Again I want to thank you for your leadership in the Republican Conference here in Washington, as well as the fact that you bring out issues that I think average Americans, middle class Americans, want to talk about these days. To be fair, I don't know if 100 days into the administration is a very good gauge of how successful or unsuccessful they will be. It is sort of more like a PR date. It is like getting your high school graduation grade in the first grade. You know what I mean? Here's the very beginning. We'll see how it goes. I guess some things that worry me are that so much of this administration has been basically designed, or the foundation is to blame President Bush for everything. And it just seems to me that this is President Obama's stimulus. It is President Obama's budget. It's President Obama's bailout. And at some point, you have to start taking responsibility for your own leadership. And I think that's important for our new President to do. And I also take issue with the often-stated fact, supposedly, from the White House, that President Clinton inherited a surplus and President Obama a deficit, which is only partially true. What they don't say is that President Clinton inherited a surplus from a Republican Congress. And President Obama inherited a deficit from a Democratic Congress. I was here in 1997 on this floor, about this time of the night, when Republicans sat down with President Clinton, worked out the balanced budget agreement that led to that surplus. And Democrats voted overwhelmingly against that balanced budget agreement. So the surplus that President Bush received didn't come from Democrats; it came from Republicans. Admittedly, Republicans, especially led by the President, spent way too much. But I'd point out that the deficit when the Republicans left the majority in Congress they had whittled down to about $160 billion a year; still way to high, but the compass was moving in the right direction. Here we are 2\1/2\ years later, under Democratic control of the House and Senate, the deficit is now 10 times that much, $1.18 trillion, the most in American history. And that's what worries our folks, Congressman Carter, the most, you know, that we are on the biggest spending spree in American history; trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars of debt that seemingly can never be repaid; $1 billion extra new funding an hour in the first 50 days of this new administration. And the question they have for me is, who's going to pay for all this? I mean, they realize there is no free lunch. There is no free money. Someone somewhere is going to have to pay for it. And it won't be the wealthy. It's going to be middle class families and small businesses, our children and grandchildren, who ultimately will pay for all this massive spending. I serve as the ranking House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee, and our economists pointed out that the stimulus bill really was a spending bill, had very little to do with creating jobs, would have very little to do with the economy recovering and may, in fact, be a drag on our economy in the out-years as we attempt to pay back where interest rights rise to catch up with all the monetary policy and fiscal policy occurring in Washington today. We also worry, our economists believe that our debt, national debt, may not just double in the next 4 years, may well triple in the next 4 years, in that inflation could go to 8 to 10 percent a year, which really eats away at people's pocketbooks, families' paychecks, really is one of the greatest, I think, damagers to our economy. And we see this spending. We see this national debt, all of it again blamed on President Bush. And I look forward to the day when our new President says, you know, this is my administration, this is my leadership. And I see the mistakes that are being made on proposing tax increases on professionals and small businesses, tax increase is major on our independent energy producers in America. Tax increases, utility increases on every American as a result of this cap-and-trade scheme. We see taxes on people who want to give charitable deductions or deduct their own mortgage rates from what they owe Uncle Sam, higher taxes on capital gains and dividends, which a lot of our seniors rely upon in their retirement days as well. And it just seems to me you cannot tax, borrow and spend your way to prosperity; that we're going to see massive tax increases, but even then, you cannot tax your way back to a balanced budget. In fact, I think and I believe that this budget that will be rushed through Congress this week, Congressman Carter, if it is allowed to pass, I don't know if we'll even have time to read it, just like the stimulus bill may be rushed through Congress. If it passes, we may well not see a balanced budget again in our lifetime. It sets the path so far from what a balanced budget is. In fact, you could double the taxes on every American, every taxpaying American in our country, you still wouldn't balance the budget under the Obama budget that we're looking at here this week. So all this debt, all this spending is scary, the direction we're headed. I'm convinced there are some issues, perhaps, that the President would like to work with Republicans on. I know that we're anxious to do that. So far it's been highly partisan in Washington. But I think there are issues that, if the President says to the Speaker and the Senate majority leader, I really do want to find consensus, rather than just jam everything through, I can tell you there are a lot of Republicans who are willing and eager to sit down with him. That's not been the case so far. As a result, I think our country is worse off for it. And I'd yield back again to the leader of this discussion.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. And if the gentleman would yield.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Congressman Carter, thank you for your leadership on this issue. Look at the board that you're standing next to. They are basically saying--our government is saying that right-wing extremists in the United States fall into two groups: those who hate others, hate- oriented groups, and those who are anti-government. So those who hate people and those who just don't think we ought to have a big government--according to our Department of Homeland Security--there is no difference. None. What kind of country are we becoming? I, like you, was in front and participated in two of our TEA parties in Montgomery County. Hundreds of people attended downtown Conroe, thousands in the Woodlands at Creekside Park waiting hours to get to the park. Average people. Americans. The type that built this country. I took a good look at this crowd and didn't see an extremist in the bunch. And don't you know I was looking for it after reading all about Secretary Napolitano's memo who paints them as the new national security threat in our country. But let me tell you what I did see. I saw Americans who are fed up with the government spending their money hand-over-fist, Americans who live within their means and pay taxes to a government that, starting this Saturday, will run out of money for the entire year. We just paid our taxes on the 15th. The government is already out of money, living on a credit card. They are asking why. What is extremist about that? I saw Americans who want secure borders, Americans who welcome immigrants who are seeking a better life. They are just asking that they come in through the front door of legal immigration rather than the back door of illegal immigration, just like generations of Americans before them. I saw veterans, veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, veterans home from Iraq and Afghanistan. They didn't look extreme or maladjusted or dangerous. They looked concerned for a country they put their lives on the line for. As Mrs. Bachmann said, they put their lives on the line. And now this country is at a crossroads, and these veterans who are willing to fight for it overseas, they are also willing to fight for their country here at home by speaking out. And my brother, who I am so proud of, a master sergeant in the Army, served in Iraq, has been deployed overseas as well, he's not extremist. He's my hero. And I would say that goes for every family that has someone who served in our wars; they are not the threat to America, man, they are the solution for America. I think Americans are waking up all across this country--we saw this this past week--they want to know if Congress, they want to know if Washington hears them. And it seems to me that not only do they not believe they are extreme, they believe the Constitution gives them the right to disagree, respectfully and forcefully, with their government, that the Constitution actually allows them to question these decisions, to question reports like you, Congressman Carter, have brought to light, rightfully so. They want and are speaking out for lower taxes. They are speaking out for families. They are speaking out for the unborn. They want all the rights afforded them in the Constitution under the Bill of Rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, and they simply ask that it be protected. In case anyone hasn't noticed, there are a lot of people in America who think that solutions to our country come from individuals, families, neighborhoods, local communities, even States. And they don't get anointed from Washington and then passed on to--Washington doesn't know best. And just because people believe in those rights, they shouldn't be labeled as extremists. The Secretary's comments were offensive. She apologized to veterans, sort of.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Not much, not much at all. And she absolutely ignored everyone else. And it seems to me that she should recant this report forcibly. She should apologize to everyone who was offended. As you said, 80 percent of Americans are now a national security threat. She should apologize to them. She should commit to the American people that she will not confuse the patriots within our country who want to build it up with extremists outside who want to tear it down. There is a huge difference. And if our government doesn't know, I really am frightened. Some pundit said, you know, maybe the snake is out of the box. Maybe this really is the attitude of our government about those who simply disagree with it. If it is, then the TEA parties will only continue to grow to be more valuable, to be critical to where we go. I appreciate Congresswoman Bachmann, Congressman Burgess--you, especially, Congressman Carter--for bringing this issue to us tonight so the American public can see that we are as outraged and angry at this report as they are, and we intend to hold those accountable who drafted and support it. With that, I would yield back.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Congressman Carter, again, I appreciate your leadership on this issue, but it begs the question of the discussion tonight; in America, we don't tolerate racial profiling, so why are we tolerating values profiling? Why are we allowing this government to profile people based on those who believe in smaller, limited government, who believe in pro-family issues, who believe in their constitutional right, the second amendment, or who just believe they ought to be able to disagree with their government? Why is our government profiling those with values at a time when we ought to be encouraging all Americans to raise their values, to speak out, to be engaged? It seems to me we have got the gun pointed at ourselves when we really ought to be, again, protecting this country against the real terrorists who threaten our way of life, not those inside who are trying to preserve it. I just want to thank you and our other speakers tonight for their very insightful remarks on this issue.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Chairman, I would yield 5 minutes to a member of the Joint Economic Committee for more than 6 years, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ron Paul.

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

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

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

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Small Business Committee himself. parliamentary inquiry

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

Mr. BRADY of Texas. At this time I'd like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a gentleman on the Armed Services Committee, an engineer--he knows his numbers--the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield Dr. Burgess an additional 30 seconds to conclude.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentlelady is right. The President did inherit a $1.2 trillion deficit, but he inherited it from a Democratic Congress that had the purse strings for the past 2 years. In fact, the Democratic Congress didn't even send President Bush a budget because they wanted to spend more than he did. So just because--I will tell you, Republicans, we didn't do a good job with controlling spending. When we left control, the deficit was about $160 billion. The deficit under this budget will be 10 times that much. And ours is bad enough. This is unthinkable. With that, I would like to yield 5 minutes to another member of the Joint Economic Committee and an expert in health care reform, the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Chairman, I would like to grant 30 seconds to Mr. Paul to conclude.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I would yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, this evening reminds me of my first session of Congress in 1997. It was a night like this, and we were struggling with a budget that was out of control. We had a Democrat President and a Republican Congress, and while it was a hard fight and we had to make a lot of tough decisions, Republicans in this House and President Clinton together passed a balanced budget agreement that succeeded. It got spending under control. It lowered taxes. It didn't raise them. Not only were we able to balance the budget, but we were able to pay off almost a half a trillion dollars worth of national debt. I remember because almost no Democrats voted for that. They claim credit now for balancing the budget, but they voted against the law that balanced our budget and allowed us to pay off that national debt. Tonight feels like that because, I think, we have the opportunity, unfortunately, to go the other direction. My worry is that this Obama- Democrat budget guarantees red ink for decades and that we may never see a balanced budget in our lifetimes if this budget passes. The Americans I know, the Texans I know, are growing increasingly worried about our unprecedented spending spree. You know, the President's budget and the Democrat budget we're talking about tonight raises taxes. It explodes spending, and it heaps on mountains of new debt for the next decade. It's clear America's finances are on the wrong track. We need to change the path now. We need to change it today or risk never seeing a balanced budget in our lifetimes, and I worry from an economic standpoint that all of this new debt is going to drag our economy down further and that, eventually, it will lead to higher inflation, which really hurts and hits families and their paychecks by eroding those paychecks and their nest eggs. We can't spend, tax and borrow our way back to prosperity. Congress has a responsibility to get on a more responsible path that leads back to a balanced budget, and we've got a Republican alternative, a Republican Study Committee alternative as well, that, I think, starts us down in that direction. I oppose strongly the budget that's proposed today that increases spending by $3 trillion over the next decade. Just think about it: Federal spending under this Democrat budget would increase nearly $1 trillion in the next year alone. $1 trillion in the next year alone. Think about that. Economists tell us that $1 trillion is represented by this: If you'd started a business on the day Our Lord was born and you'd lost $1 million every day since, we still would not be to that first $1 trillion. We're going to add more than that in new spending just in the next year. We're going to spend twice as much as that in new debt added to the Federal debt. Those are staggering numbers, amounts of debt I never dreamed I would see in my lifetime. It gets worse. Under this budget plan and budget path, over the next 10 years of debt held by the public, it will triple to over $17 trillion. Again, it's an amount that most people never dreamed we would see. According to the Joint Economic Committee, the debt, as a share of our economy, will almost double during that period. Some economists think it will go up even faster. According to a recent study of many financial crises by Professors Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, it has become an instant classic. U.S. national debt can be expected to increase by $8 trillion to $9 trillion just over the next 3 years. During that period, inflation of 8 to 10 percent, something most of us haven't seen since the '70s, is more than likely the way the government will end up paying for this huge run-up in Federal debt. These economists compare the coming economic environment to the '70s, which had rising inflation, weak economic growth, rising unemployment, and what we called the misery index. Unfortunately, that may be what we're heading for. Because this budget and the President's budget cooks the books and uses faulty economic assumptions in its forecast, it has a variety of accounting gimmicks that really hides the true cost of these dangerous budget priorities. As the Washington Post said last week--and it's not exactly a conservative newspaper--``In this budget, Congress deals a blow to honest budgeting.'' The Democrats now are attempting to shoehorn expensive administrative proposals based on unrealistic economic assumptions, and the budget uses gimmicks to mask spending. So we're going to see much higher debt and, eventually, higher taxes. The fact is the U.S. can't afford to engage in this spending spree on top of a stimulus, on top of a budget just passed, huge spending on top of the new bailout dollars, and now this budget hitting Americans straight in the face. You would think we'd be listening to warnings from China and from others of our creditors to remind us that there are limits to the appetite for U.S. Treasury securities. We are on a dangerous path. What we see in this budget are tax increases on small businesses, on professionals, on exporters, and on entrepreneurs. We see huge, new cap-and-trade taxes and costly new entitlements that will drive us deeper into debt and that will really raid the pocketbooks of most American families. Before I reserve my time, the question is: Who pays for all of this? Because there's no free money in Washington. Someone eventually has to pay for it, and it won't be just the wealthy. It's going to be the middle class. It's going to be professionals. It's going to be hardworking families. It's going to be the elderly. We're going to see higher capital gains and dividends taxes, a lot of which our seniors live off of in their retirement. They've already seen their retirement portfolios devastated. Now we're going to tax them if those gains go back up. There will be tax hikes on charitable donations. At a time when more and more people need local charity services and contributions are down, we're actually going to discourage our professionals and small businesses from giving to our local charities. I guess they think they can use the money more wisely here in Washington. You're going to see a carbon tax, an energy tax, that in Texas will drive energy bills up 100 percent in some areas, 50 percent in others. It will be a huge cost to families on their utility bills. The taxes on small business in a number and in a variety of ways are going to destroy jobs. The marriage penalty comes back in a major way. You're going to increase the income taxes on professionals and small businesses by at least 20 percent. What's interesting is this small group of professionals and small businesses makes up about 5 percent of the taxpayers in America. They already pay 60 percent of the taxes. They carry 10 times the load. This budget is going to tax them more. So the signal we're going to send to people is, if you go to college and get a degree, if you develop a skill, if you start a new business, if you build up your life, we're going to punish you for it. We're going to punish you for it in higher taxes. We're going to discourage you. This budget brings back the death tax. Can you imagine working your whole life to start a business or to run the family farm, and at the very end, Uncle Sam swoops in and takes up half of what you've earned? You intended to give it to your children or to your grandchildren, but Uncle Sam comes in and takes it. It's the number 1 reason most small businesses aren't able to hand their businesses down to their children. It's the number 1 reason family farms don't survive. Today, we're seeing more women-owned and minority-owned businesses that are facing the same death tax. They aren't going to survive. The death tax needs to go away permanently as it did under President Bush and the Republican tax relief measures. Finally, coming from an energy State, we see unprecedented increases on America's energy industry. The very people who develop our oil and gas. Onshore, small and independent energy companies will face devastating tax increases, including one where it actually punishes them and treats them like they're foreign investors. It punishes them for drilling and for exploring here in America. It makes no sense at all. At this point, we have several members of the Joint Economic Committee and others who would like to share their thoughts on this budget and on the condition of America's financing. With that, I would like to reserve, Madam Chair, the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I would yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me thank the gentlelady from New York, the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, for not just the tone of tonight's debate, but the tone of your leadership on the Joint Economic Committee. I truly enjoy serving with you. While we're sitting here, I got an e-mail from a constituent who asked, How do you make debt go away by spending 10 times as much? Are they trying to sell America magic beans? Sounds funny, but the truth of the matter is this isn't funny times. America's finances are on the wrong track. We need to change that path now or we risk never seeing a balanced budget in our life time. We can't spend, tax, and borrow our way back to prosperity. The Republican alternative I like focuses on job creation through small businesses; doesn't raise taxes--it lowers them; it creates incentives to hire and keep workers; encourages private investment rather than bailout; and it starts whittling down this debt so that we will see a balanced budget again. Madam Chair, we are at a historic moment in America's history. We have a path of bigger debt and higher taxes and huge loads on our children. Or we can get back on the right path again. The Republican alternative does that. We urge a ``no'' on this fiscally irresponsible Democrat budget. Let's work together--both parties--to get back to balance the budget. The first start is the Republican alternative. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. There's no question everyone wants these bonuses returned. That isn't an issue before us today. Taxpayers have a real simple question: When did the White House know about these bonuses, and why didn't they stop them? The government owns AIG, for heaven's sake, so don't tell me they couldn't have stopped them if they truly would have wanted to. The bill before us today really is a diversion--an attempt to shift the blame from Democrats who, at the last moment, got approval for these bonuses snuck into the stimulus bill. For our folks back home, the President has said honestly, he didn't know this provision is in the bill. Yet his own White House made the request and they complied with the bill. Let's not cover up the truth here. Let's get the real answers. That's what taxpayers deserve.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009. Requesting Member: Congressman Kevin Brady, Texas 8th Congressional District Bill Number: H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 Project: Sam Rayburn Lake Twin Dikes Operations & Maintenance Account: U.S. Corps of Engineers, Operations and Maintenance Requesting Entity: U.S. Corps of Engineers, Ft. Worth District Address of Requesting Entity: 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 This is the second year I've requested funding to repair the Twin Dikes Park marine launching complex since its collapse due to Hurricane Rita, erosion, and excessive wave action. Unfortunately, the Corps has a backlog of maintenance on some of the most widely used recreational facilities at Lake Sam Rayburn. In addition to this project, I continue to support the U.S. Corps of Engineers annual request for funding to operate and maintain the lakes, and other water resources of East and Southeast Texas. The $6,138,000 included in this bill for this project will be allocated to perform annual operations and maintenance of the Sam Rayburn Reservoir ($5,775,000) and to begin rehabilitation of the marine launching complex at Twin Dikes Park ($363,000). Requesting Member: Congressman Kevin Brady, Texas 8th Congressional District Bill Number: H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 Project: Pulmonary Hypertension Awareness Program Account: Department of Health and Human Services, Center 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 education for over ten years; and for this reason and for the second year in a row, I have requested funding to strengthen and continue a successful partnership between the non-profit 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 would 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 $238,000 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. Together these activities will enhance general public and medical professional awareness of pulmonary hypertension and lead to earlier diagnosis and appropriate treatment of individuals who have the disease. Requesting Member: Congressman Kevin Brady, Texas 8th Congressional District Bill Number: H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 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 Established last year with my support, fiscal year 2009 funding for the Regional Crime Lab at Sam Houston State University will allow it to become operational. 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 Rural Crime Laboratory started with funding I secured last year. This lab will provide services to local law enforcement such as identification of controlled substances, toxicology screening and finger print matching. The lab will be able to service communities in a 75-mile wide area. The $800,000 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: salaries and benefits for laboratory staff ($547,800); lab supplies ($11,558); subcontracts for staff training ($27,000) and indirect cost amounting to $213,642. Requesting Member: Congressman Kevin Brady, Texas 8th Congressional District Bill Number: H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 Project: I-69 Improvements Account: Surface Transportation Priorities, Interstate 69, Texas Requesting Entity: I-69 Texas Alliance Address of Requesting Entity: 1200 Smith, Suite 700, Houston, TX 77002 This requested funding will allow for additional required environmental studies needed to upgrade several US highways in the region. This request--is not part of the now dead Trans Texas Corridor--provides funding for the continuation of the long-planned project involving segments of US 59, 77 and 281. Since 1991, efforts have been made to improve these routes to Interstate standards to meet the higher demand of increased traffic. These highway segments have been identified by Congress as a high priority; by upgrading the existing highways to Interstate standards we will increase motorist safety and regional mobility in the increasingly busy Houston and East Texas region. The $617,500 included in this bill will go to the Texas Department of Transportation to continue planning, design, and development of segments of US Highway 59 to Interstate standards. Requesting Member: Congressman Kevin Brady, Texas 8th Congressional District Bill Number: H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 Project: Big Thicket Land Acquisition Account: National Park Service, Land Acquisition Requesting Entity: The Conservation Fund, Texas Office Address of Requesting Entity: 101 West 6th Street, Suite 601, Austin, TX 78701 The Big Thicket National Preserve is one of America's ecological treasures. It is an unusually shaped preserve whose boundaries include land once owned by major timber companies. When funded in full, this represents the final year in a seven year land acquisition program. This request enables the National Park Service to acquire critical land within the congressionally authorized boundary of the Big Thicket National Preserve to diversify the economic potential of southeast Texas through increased tourism opportunities. This project works only with voluntary, ``willing-seller'' landowners. The $1,000,000 included in this bill for this project will allow the National Park Service to buy approximately 500 acres of land on eight tracts currently held by the Conservation Fund acquired from willing sellers or by voluntary donation.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Thank you, Chairman. It is sad that this House has imposed a gag rule so that the American public can't hear today what's in this bill. The special interests know what's in this bill. They certainly do. Congress is going to rain billions of dollars of cash across this land, and special interests and lobbyists have big buckets out to catch it. We all want this President to succeed. We want this economy to get going because people are hurting. But when the economy is drowning, you throw it a life preserver. You don't build a 40-foot yacht for it. This bill is too big. It is too expensive. It is way too slow. And at the end of the day, it is not going to rescue this economy. And at the end of a couple of years, it's middle-class families and small businesses that are going to have to pay for all this cash. Taxpayers just aren't willing to spend one-quarter of $1 million to trade a new job. They're not willing to spend more money on art than on small businesses. They're not willing to buy Frisbee golf courses and gambling trains. That is a bad use of our dollars. We can do better.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I know that our new President is sincere in trying to get the economy moving. Unfortunately, I think the only winners in this bill are the special interests who are swarming the Capitol looking for their piece of the pie. And the losers will be the American taxpayers, who ultimately are going to see their taxes increased to pay for all this spending. There's a right way to spur the economy. This isn't it. And again, it will lead to higher tax increases. Proponents claim that this will help spur demand for families, but the average worker will only take home an extra $1.35 a day. I can't imagine them rushing to the mall with that small of a windfall. This is supposed to help small businesses create jobs, but in truth, there's more money allocated to buy new art in America than there is to help small businesses expense new equipment and computers. This is designed to create jobs, but each job would cost $225,000 to create a smaller $50,000 job. This is supposed to be about infrastructure, but only about a tiny part, 3\1/2\ percent, will go to new roads. And school construction is just a tiny part of a massive education bill. And what's frustrating is there is no free money, there is no free money in Washington; someone sometime is going to have to pay for this. And at a time when we are seeing record debt, the highest debt in peacetime since 1930, it is the American public who ultimately will have to pay this bill. To put it in perspective so that every taxpayer understands, the cost of this measure is equal to doubling all the income taxes every American pays for 1 year; not just the wealthy, not just the middle class, every taxpayer would have to double their taxes in order to pay for this spending spree. Mr. President, I would urge you to veto this bill. It is not targeted or timely. It is not an era of new responsibility. This is a tax increase, a stimulus that will fail, unfortunately, and we have a better idea.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I would point out that it was a Democrat Congress that for decades robbed from the highway trust fund, and it was the Republican Congress, with the Republican President, who insisted for the first time that all the highway fuel dollars would go to actually building highways and bridges in America. I would note too, Republicans doubled the research and development budget of America, not Democrats.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I stand up today before my esteemed colleagues to honor a lifelong resident of my district who just flat-out loved politics. Nothing--short of time with her three children, five grandchildren, nine great-grandchildren and nine great- great-grandchildren--made Berniece Hughes of Conroe, Texas, happier than getting mad at what we all had to say on her favorite all-news channels. The daughter of the late W.V. and Lennie Galloway Holliday of Polk County, Berniece Hughes did her growing up during the Great Depression. She was a girls' basketball and track team member at Goodrich High in Polk County where she was in the 1934 graduating class. The oldest of six, Berniece is now reunited in heaven with her brothers and sisters and her sweetheart, B.F. ``Bert'' Hughes. A master of the one-liners, Berniece, even at 92, was--as her daughter puts it--a ``doodle mama just like Driving Miss Daisy.'' Likening her mother and father to screen giants Tracy and Hepburn, Lana says quick quips and laughter were just part of growing up a Hughes. Berniece thoroughly enjoyed being home with her children--B.F. ``Mike'' Hughes, Jr. of Livingston, and Wayne Hughes and Lana Hughes of Houston--as they were growing up. She was even more delighted to spend the second half of her days in Conroe enjoying watching her children bring her grandchildren and her grandchildren bring her great- grandchildren and so on. Everyone who met her described Berniece as ``a pistol.'' Once again, Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to share the story of a life well lived and ask for their thoughts and prayers as Berniece's large, loving family will gather together at the Forest Park Lawndale Cemetery and Funeral Home to say their final goodbyes to their ``doodle mama,'' this Saturday morning.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 20th anniversary of the Greater Houston Partnership. I ask my colleagues and those visitors in the House Chamber to join me in congratulating the Greater Houston Partnership and applauding the many achievements they have accomplished over the past 20 years. In 1989, the Houston Chamber of Commerce, the Houston Economic Development Council and the Houston World Trade Center joined together to make the dream of an organization that would be an advocate for the business community in the greater Houston area a reality. The Greater Houston Partnership has grown into an influential organization that now has two thousand member businesses and serves 10 fast growing counties: Austin, Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, San Jacinto and Waller. The Partnership has had an impressive impact on the region. In the last year, 53 percent of all jobs created in the United States were created in Texas--and one in four of those were in Houston. This is astounding and a testimony to the contributions the Greater Houston Partnership has made to cultivate a vibrant business environment. The Partnership's efforts are focused on building Houston's prosperity and promoting regional economic development. The Partnership is actively involved with public policy issues and works with local elected officials to ensure the Greater Houston community is well represented in areas such as clean air, education and transportation. In its two decades of existence there is much to be proud of. It is an honor to recognize such an impressive organization. All Americans can learn from the collaborative example the Greater Houston Partnership continues to display through their leadership and guidance to the people and businesses in the Greater Houston community. Madam Speaker, today more than ever, we must support the efforts of the Greater Houston Partnership and other similar organizations across the country. The work they do to help create jobs in our country is essential for continued economic growth and stability in the face of the global economic changes. I urge you to join me in congratulating the Greater Houston Partnership for 20 years of serving as the voice for the greater Houston business community.