Kevin Brady

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in Illinois, if we ask any neighbor who has a good, secure job that they like, that is paying good, decent benefits, I wonder how many of them work for a company or for a farm that does not have a salesman, that does not have someone out there selling and promoting their products. And yet we wonder how can America succeed against other countries when we lock our President here. We do not allow him to go out there and open up markets, tear down that ``Americans need not apply sign,'' who pushes for us just to get a fair shake in this competition. I do not know how we succeed these days without a tough, aggressive sales force out there pushing for us. Does the gentleman?

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Does the gentleman not think it is a great source of frustration for America's heartland that they have answered the call to produce their food and their products more efficiently, cheaper, more affordably, more environmentally friendly ways, they have done all the right things, yet the prices get lower and lower because they are blocked? Literally, ``Americans need not apply'' signs are all around the world for our products, and all they want is the opportunity to compete. Because they know if they do, that American farmers and ranchers and producers, we could feed the world, at least we could if they would allow us to. Because other countries are out there on the playing field opening up their markets, but America is not even in the ball game. We do not even have a chance to stand up for our farmers and our ranchers and producers. Does the gentleman not think that is why the agriculture community in America is united behind this legislation, because this gives them a chance to compete?

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Both of these gentlemen have been leaders in trade, because it means jobs for Georgians, it means jobs for people in Michigan, it means jobs for people in Illinois. As you mentioned, Chile, an average person, just one of our neighbors will ask, sure, I can see why a country like Chile would want to sell to America. They are going to get all the benefits from these agreements. What is in it for us in this country? I looked at a study the other day that showed if we had a free trade agreement with Chile, their economy would grow by some $700 million a year, a pretty big pop by Chilean standards. But America, our selling, we would sell 128 times more products to Chile as a result of the agreement. So, in fact, our economy is boosting. We are creating more jobs as a result of that trade between us and another country. Of course, that means jobs here in our local community. With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who is also very involved in labor issues, environmental issues and job creation.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I know the gentleman from Georgia has long played a leadership role in trade, and I know you listen very carefully to those who create jobs in Georgia. What do your farmers, your small businesses, your technology companies, your financial groups, those who are creating jobs in Georgia, what do they tell you about this legislation?

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is one of the leaders of the Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman is familiar with legislation that opens up markets to American farmers and businesses and jobs. One of the excuses we hear from people that do not support this is that Congress has no say in this legislation. The President negotiates it and usurps our constitutional power, that we have no say in shaping what an agreement will look like. My understanding is that the legislation provides more consultation than ever in history, but what are the gentleman's thoughts?

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the need for Trade Promotion Authority is clear. Approval of TPA, as it is called, is critical to the economic prosperity of our Nation, of Texas, and regions like mine, for the economic security of America, for the future. The President urgently needs this authority. He has made this one of his very few top priorities before Congress adjourns in the next few weeks. He needs it to level the playing field for U.S. companies by removing barriers abroad to American exports. In other words, he wants to be a salesman for American companies, for American jobs, for American farmers. Every President until 1994 has had this authority. But we have been out of that game, we have been out of that playing field, and it has cost us literally tens of thousands of jobs. No successful business survives without a strong sales force. So why do we think America can succeed over the long haul without giving the President the tools he needs to promote American goods and services in the international marketplace. In the end, Congress, Members of Congress, will have the ultimate decision on whether any proposed agreement is free and fair, in America's interest. I want that authority. I want the responsibility to look at an agreement to open new markets with another country for our American products and goods. I can determine whether it is good for this Nation, for my district, or not. America is falling terribly behind. There are more than 130 trade and investment agreements in the world today. One hundred thirty. How many is America a party to? Three. That ranks the United States behind those free enterprise bastions of Cuba and Morocco, although I think we edge out Tunisia by one agreement. That is embarrassing. Congress has forced the United States to sit on the sidelines. By not granting our President the ability to promote trade, our international competitors are forging ahead. They are successfully completing their own trade agreements that puts U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage. For example, the European Union has trade and customs agreements with 27 countries and another 15 accords in the pipeline to date. To explain it another way, and I am not much of a gambler or a golfer, but my friends who golf regularly and make a friendly wager will say that oftentimes that wager is won or lost on the first tee as people decide what the rules are going to be and when they give strokes to each of the competitors. Well, America is not on that first tee when it comes to laying out the rules for trade, so our companies are not getting fair rules and we are not getting fair strokes. We are, in fact, put at a terrible disadvantage. Everyone knows their own region better, but for Houston this is about jobs and our economic future. We have tens of thousands of new jobs at stake with this legislation. And as I have seen it, perhaps no State or region will benefit more or create more jobs from the passage of TPA than ours. Trade is already a large creator for America and a large creator for Texas. We are the second largest exporter in the country and the fastest growing. The Houston region is the largest and fastest growing export region in Texas, and now nearly two out of every three new jobs that are being created in our region come from international trade. That is good news for employees who have been laid off from Enron, from Continental, from Compaq, and from other very good companies. We need to get them back up on their feet and in new jobs, and trade is the way to do it. We sell or transfer what the world wants to buy, from agriculture to energy, petrochemicals to computers, construction services to new technologies and insurance. These are our competitive strengths. In fact, these are America's competitive strengths, and with the second largest port in America, great international air routes and airports, and a proximity to growing Latin American markets, Trade Promotion Authority is critical to our economic future. Truly, I do not understand how any Member of Congress who has constituents in the Houston region can justify not opening other countries' markets to America, to Texas, to Houston businesses and farmers, because it is our jobs locally that are at stake. When we look at what the opponents say about it, this legislation includes some of the strongest environmental and labor language in trade history in America. Each country must not only rigorously enforce its existing laws, environment and labor, but seek ways to further protect the environment and to further raise worker standards. Here is a good example in real life in the environment that I know of and have seen firsthand. Through NAFTA, the borders have been open between Texas and Mexico, America and Mexico. But because of that trade agreement, we now have, along our border, over 18 environmental projects that total more than $1 billion. That is $1 billion, new dollars, that are in projects to clean our air, to clean our water, to clean the wastewater and sewer in our area, and generally to create a much better environment in an area that desperately needed it that never would have happened without trade. When we talk about labor standards and worker raises, we can look at one of our trade agreements that we do have with the Andean countries that includes Bolivia and Colombia and other countries. When we listen to them, they say as a result of America trading with them, not only has America created jobs, but in terms of labor standards, Colombia, for example, in that region, has created more than 100,000 new jobs. They used to be into narco-trafficking, the drug trafficking trade, and now they are in legitimate business. They have, for example, the cut flower industry that is now a model industry that now has much higher wages for its workers, has child care and training and education for its women employees. It is helping these people buy homes and improve their homes that they never had a chance to do before. It has raised the worker standards for that region. And Colombia, in fact, has launched a ``cleaner Colombia'' effort that these businesses are part of to clean up the environment down there. So we are seeing higher labor standards, and we are seeing a greener world because of trade. And they could have more of these model companies if America would just simply let them. As I see it, and when I listen to them, they have watched the way America has pulled itself up by its bootstraps, and they do not want just aid, they want to trade. They want to compete. They want to try to build themselves as America has built itself, and they are right to do so. I am convinced when people say trade hurts the environment, common sense tells us they are wrong. For countries who are so poor or their children going hungry, where their families shiver through the night, protecting the rain forest, protecting the Monarch Butterfly is not high on their priority list. The fact of the matter is trade, raising worker standards, giving people a job, helping raise the environment, that is the best way to protect and preserve the environment around the real world. Not what we hear in Washington, but the way it works in the real world. The truth is, unfortunately, for opponents of Trade Promotion Authority, no language will ever be tough enough. Business has already made tremendous concessions. The reasonable objections of the environmental community and those really looking at labor from a reasonable standpoint have all been met. They have given up a great deal in order to try to work with our Members across the aisle who simply do not want free and fair trade, who are afraid, unfortunately, of competition. But they are simply not going to support this. We are fortunate that we did have some trade-oriented, fair trade- oriented Democrats who helped craft this bill. It is the best compromise that can be reached, and I think they played a key role in making this the best trade legislation that Congress has ever crafted. Mr. Speaker, this surprises people. Because we talk about competition, but trade is very good for consumers. By the most recent estimate, American families save nearly $2,000 a year because of competition that trade brings about. What that means is that. For an average family like ours or yours, we can make one trip to a grocery store a month free due to the savings from international competition. Those are the savings we see because we have better and more affordable cars, clothing, toys and TV sets. What that means this year is that parents will have one or more gifts under the tree for their children due to savings because of competition. The bottom line here is there is a principal attached to this legislation. And here it is. If Americans build a better mousetrap, we should be able to sell it without penalty anywhere in the world. If someone builds a better mousetrap, we should be able to buy it without penalty for our families and businesses. This legislation really provides us a very clear choice for voters to see. There is a choice between defeatists who believe that American products are not good enough to compete, or those of us who believe that enhanced trade is America's future. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we should not retreat from fair trade competition. We should insist on it. Competition is America's strength, and it is the key to our high-tech, high-wage future, and truly tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr BRADY of Texas

Mr BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 466, I was inadvertedly detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this bill is good for America, it is good for the Andes, and it is good for anyone who is concerned about more jobs and better jobs, and about the environment and labor here in America and around the world. In the last decade, because of this new trade between America and the Andes, we have created 140,000 new jobs in the Andean region, jobs that used to be dependent on drug trafficking but now are dependent on a real economy. As a country like America knows, we have had so many in our families destroyed by drug trafficking here and at home, so every effort we can do to replace that and stem that offshore is good for us. In Colombia, for example, we have seen the flower industry become a model industry, initiating antiviolence training programs, helping people buy new homes, leading a ``greener Colombia'' effort. These are model industries for worker rights and the environment they have never done before. They can do more and want to have more model industries, and we hold them back, because only 10 percent of the goods from the Andes are eligible for ATPA benefits. We need to expand them, because in the end, competition is not only good for America, but it is our future, as well.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the measure proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and supported by the President. The President's measure is important to the country because we cannot stand idly by and let a terrorist topple our economy as they toppled the World Trade Center. We have a big economy in America so any stimulus bill we have has to be focused. It cannot be scattered. This bill helps boost consumer spending, but its main focus is to preserve and create new jobs. Getting our economy moving will not happen because people go to the shopping mall with a shopping list. It will happen because they go to the mall with a job and the shopping list. The tax code we have today discourages companies from helping people get jobs and keep them. We changed that. We are encouraging companies to buy that new piece of equipment, to open that new satellite office, to approve that new project, to create jobs; and as importantly, we stop taking money from businesses that they could better use to keep their good people on board during these economic tough times. Who is creating these jobs? One of my favorite bumper stickers says, ``If you can read this, thank a teacher.'' Well, if someone has a job, who do they thank? The IRS, a Washington bureaucrat, or do we thank the free enterprise system where a farmer or a business of any size that builds a better mouse trap and sells it creates new jobs? My people back home from Continental and Compaq and others who are laid off in my neighborhood, they do not want a rebate check. They want a paycheck. They do not want unemployment benefits in a year. They want a job today. They do not want a plan that helps a few industries. They want to plug all the holes in our economic boat so we can rise together faster. They know that when they are unemployed they are not paying into our Social Security trust fund; they are not making Medicare stronger; they are not helping pay off the debt. This economic stimulus is an investment, a long-term investment that does not cost. It pays.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Texas A&M University, the oldest public university in Texas, which is celebrating its 125th anniversary today. By virtue of being the first public institution of higher learning opened in the state of Texas, today we commemorate a milestone for public higher education in Texas. When Texas A&M opened on October 4, 1876 it attracted a mere six students. Today its student body has grown to nearly 45,000, a level that is expected to once again place it among the five largest universities in the nation. Since its opening, Texas A&M has awarded more than 265,000 degrees. Its graduates include Texas Governor Rick Perry, Bolivian President Jorge F. Quiroga, legislators and other public officials at both the Federal and state levels, chief executive officers of Fortune 500 companies and numerous other highly successful individuals in business, industry and education. Additionally, it has produced thousands of officers for all branches of the military, including more than 200 who have achieved the rank of general or admiral. While teaching at both the undergraduate and graduate levels will always be central to Texas A&M's multiple missions, the University has emerged as a major research institution. In fact, this past May it was selected for membership in the Association of American Universities (AAU), the prestigious 101-year-old organization that restricts its ranks to the nation's premier public and private institutions of higher learning. Texas A&M's annual investment in research now totals more than $400 million annually--the most for any institution in Texas or the Southwest. The myriad of studies and experiments are significantly enhancing the basic body of knowledge, and many of the projects have had major economic impact on the state and nation. Texas A&M's success in teaching and research can be attributed to an outstanding faculty whose ranks now total approximately 2,400. Included are scores of individuals who are considered among the best in their fields-nationally and internationally. The faculty includes a winner of the Nobel Prize, the National Medal of Science, the World Food Prize and numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. Mr. Speaker, Texas A&M was founded as a Land-Grant College under provisions of the Morrill Act which was approved by Congress on July 2, 1862. The act stipulated that such institutions' ``leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and mechanical arts in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the various pursuits and professions in life . . .'' By most assessments, Texas A&M is unsurpassed in staying true to its Land-Grant heritage while expanding into other areas that provide the foundations for a leading 21st Century university. For example Texas A&M's Colleges of Agriculture and Engineering are among the largest and most respected in the nation, and its Corps of Cadets is the largest uniformed student organization on any campus in the nation, except for the service academies. Additionally, Texas A&M took the lead nationally in applying the Land-Grant concept to two other areas that are crucial to the nation, specifically sea and space. The concept that led to the Federal creation of Sea-Grant and Space-Grant Colleges was initiated at Texas A&M, and Texas A&M is one of a select few institutions to hold Federal mandates as a Land-, Sea- and Space-Grant College. Mr. Speaker, I have been fortunate to represent and work closely with Texas A&M University since I was elected to Congress in 1996. During this time I have seen first-hand from the students, the faculty, and the administration why Texas A&M University has become one of our nation's premier universities. Again, I wish to congratulate Texas A&M University on its first 125 years and wish everyone there much success in the university's next 125 years.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, Congress is right to act because America's air transportation system is as critical to our economy as our highways, our railroads, and our seaports. This is important locally to me because the 20,000 Continental Airlines furloughs are causing a great deal of hardship for our families in our communities. Without swift action from Congress, many more of our jobs and our businesses will suffer greatly, and so will our chances for recovering from this economic strain, and as we work to open new markets for Texas and for the United States. These are extraordinary times, and in the end, whatever concerns we may have, we simply cannot sit idle and give terrorists the satisfaction of toppling America's economy as they did the Twin Towers. This is crucial legislation tonight, now, for America.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the caring families and communities in the Eighth Congressional District, and on behalf of the members of the Texas Task Force One, the Urban Search and Rescue Team from Texas A&M University who were swiftly deployed to help New York, I rise to pledge our help, our support, and our prayers. Today we come together to reinforce America's resolve, to state our unqualified support for the President in this time of crisis. We come here also for the very real purpose of trying to show those dearest and nearest to the victims of yesterday's terrorist attack that their deep sense of loss is shared by a Nation. Of loved ones suddenly taken, we hope that in some small way we can help further the sense of a life well fulfilled, a time on Earth well spent, and joyous days to come in a glorious place waiting eagerly for us; of loved ones yet to be found, we pray and hope. Years from now, the vision of September 11, 2001, will mean something different to every eye that sees it. It is a dark day, and to paraphrase the poet Alfred Tennyson, the heavens must surely have filled with shouting at the sheer evil that man plunged upon innocent man. Here on Earth we shouted as well. By any measure, yesterday's attack was a declaration of war on our country, on our shores, and we must act accordingly. In the coming days, our challenge is to aid and comfort the fallen friends while showing the world that America is absolutely unbowed. And then, after due diligence and without mercy, we must calmly and deliberately exact justice from the terrorists responsible, and each complicit government. It will not be easy. ``The times which future generations delight to recall are not those of ease and prosperity, but of adversity bravely borne.'' America has faced unimaginable adversity before, and we have borne it with one voice and one power. If Members believe in justice, believe this: America's time will come, and those who celebrate terrorism will celebrate no more.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives will consider legislation granting President Bush trade promotion authority. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Why do we need restored trade promotion authority to the President and to America? The answer is jobs and our children's future. Currently the United States is at a severe disadvantage when we have to compete with the rest of the world. Not because of the quality of our products. They are high. But because of the trade barriers we face abroad. According to a report released earlier this year of the estimated 130 free trade agreements around the world, only two today include the United States. Giving the President this authority to negotiate on our behalf would help give America the tools we need to break down the barriers abroad so we can sell American goods and services around the world and the potential is huge. Ninety-six percent of the world lives outside the United States. Ninety-six percent of the world lives outside our borders. While they cannot all buy the products we buy today, someday they will, and we want them to buy American products. Here is an interesting static. Half the adults in the world today, half the adults in the world have yet to make their first telephone call. Well, if it is European countries to sell those telephone systems, they will create European jobs. If they are Asian companies that sell those telephone systems, they will create Asian jobs. If they are American companies that sell those telephone systems, we will create American jobs. These are jobs for our future and for our children going through the schools today. Countries around the world are hesitant to negotiate trade agreements with us. They are scared Congress will change every agreement 1,000 different ways after it has been negotiated. What trade promotion authority does, it gives Congress, your representatives, a final say on whether an agreement is fair and free. I want that say. Mr. Speaker, in order to keep America the greatest economic power in the world, we have to be able to compete in the trade arena. The only way we will be able to do this is by granting President Bush trade promotion authority on our behalf.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. I want to ensure that the Department of State and the Department of Justice have the resources they need to start the process to close safe havens around the world for fugitives who commit crimes in America and flee our justice. We can do this by updating and modernizing extradition treaties, as well as negotiating new ones. This problem is growing. The world is getting smaller; and whereas in the past criminals would flee to the county or State line to flee justice, today they flee the country and even the continent. We have more than 3,000 indicted criminals who have fled America and are out of our reach. The crimes they have committed or are charged with are serious. They include murder, terrorism, drug trafficking, child abduction, money laundering, financial fraud, and the new growing area of cybercrime. Currently, America has international extradition agreements with only 60 percent of the world's countries. Unfortunately, it is important to note that nearly half of these were enacted before World War II, so they are hopelessly outdated. Even the others, State Department officials tell us those enacted prior to 1970 are basically ineffective because only specific crimes are listed in the treaties as extraditable, and crimes have changed a lot in the last three decades. Mr. Chairman, we have crimes that are growing and criminals who are fleeing more and more, with criminal justice tools that are more outdated and less effective. This is not justice. It is not fair to the victims of these crimes, and it is not acceptable any longer. Mr. Chairman, I am always cautious about how and where the hard- earned dollars of the American taxpayer are spent. More funding is necessary to help close these safe havens. Furthermore, this is something that can only be done by our Federal Government. It will not happen overnight. It will take many years, but we are capable of doing it. Mr. Chairman, I had a provision inserted in the State Department fiscal year 2000 authorization bill requiring them to report back to us on our extradition agreements. I must say I was disappointed in the report. They seemed to gloss over the problems, perhaps to put politics over justice. I am hopeful that the new administration will take a stronger position on closing these safe havens. This amendment is strictly designed to urge the new leadership of the Justice Department and State Department to let Congress know that we are serious about closing these safe havens, that we want both agencies to work together and with Congress to update our treaties and to work toward the day where there is nowhere on this world to hide for those who commit crimes against America.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his efforts. With his commitment to ensure that the Department of Justice and Department of State are being provided with the necessary resources and that these agencies understand that Congress expects them to put a greater emphasis on negotiating and enforcing extradition treaties, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, there is a reason America has the highest standards and the safest foods in the world, safer than Europe, more nutrition than Asia, using less pesticides and preserving more of the environment than any other Nation in the world. The reason is that time and time again America has refused to inject politics into our food safety process. However, that is what this amendment does. It contaminates our scientifically sound food safety process with politics. There is no scientific reason for the moratorium. The FDA already requires all food applicants, whether they are scientifically improved or not, to meet their highest safety standards, not just for human food consumption but for animal welfare and environmental safety. This amendment not only does not contribute to food safety, it actually harms it, because it says no matter how beneficial, no matter how strong and valuable this research is, we cannot even consider it. This does discourage research into aquaculture breakthroughs which help us develop fish stocks that are healthier, more abundant, and more immune to disease. That is important not just to farm catfish, not because we have decimated the world's fishing, but it helps to save the 30 percent of fish killed needlessly each year because of illness. If fish are healthy, the food is going to be healthy. Finally, this amendment feeds the European hysteria, and feeds upon normal people who have not thought about the progress and benefits of biotechnology, too. The fact of the matter is that we produce more food on less land, more environmentally safe food with less pesticides in America and around the world because of biotechnology. At Texas A&M, which I represent, we work with the Medical Center in Houston to develop plants and vegetables that have cancer-fighting oxidants. As we said here today, scientists have rice that will address the vitamin A deficiency which could help prevent 500,000 children each year from going blind in this world. This is a risky amendment. This is a scientifically unsound amendment. Most importantly, it injects politics into food. Let us keep the politics out of food safety and in Washington where it belongs.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Washington is out of touch with the real world again. Tax relief does not cause deficit spending, as we hear; spending causes deficit spending. Washington spends every dime we send up here. That is the reason why this Congress stopped deficit spending in America. That is why this Congress stopped 40 years of dipping into the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, and that is why this Congress has started to pay down a good amount of the national public debt. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake. The very reason we sent money back home to the people is because we will spend every dime of it. Look what we spend. Let us talk about the outhouse, the $1 million, two-seater outhouse that our National Parks and Wildlife built a year ago. Let us talk about the salmon. We spend $5 billion a year helping salmon swim upstream to their spawning grounds. We could put each fish in a first-class ticket seat and fly them to the top of the river each year and still save money. We have enough dollars for the priorities of America. What we do not have is enough for the priorities of silliness. Tax relief does not cause deficit spending, spending causes deficit spending.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the House Committee on Science, I am a strong supporter of NASA and our international space station. So is President Bush, but you would not know so if you listened to some of the rumors going around Houston and our Johnson Space Center. But here are the facts. Only last year NASA told us on the Committee on Science that they would need $14.4 billion for the coming year. Even after they raised the request recently, the President's budget meets that request at $14.5 billion; meets NASA's request. The President also increases funding for the space station, for the launch initiative, and keeps a sustained level of six space shuttle flights. Understandably, at budget time you are going to have some partisan spin, but, seriously, how can you criticize the President when he gives NASA what it asked for, at a level nearly $1 billion higher than where it has languished for 4 of the last 5 years? The fact is, for space supporters in Congress, we have never started a budget year so strongly, and our congressional appropriators are trying to do more. Unfortunately, only in Washington are budget increases spun as budget cuts.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, even though President Bush inherited the energy problem, I appreciate that he is shooting straight with the American people about what it will take to have reliable, affordable and environmentally clean energy for our country. America, we do have the responsibility to meet more of our own energy needs. Common sense tells us we will need a balanced game plan based on conservation, on new technology and new supply. There are no shortcuts, no Band-Aids, no steps that we can skip. The discharge petition Members see today is more Hollywood theatrics, more Band-Aids, and we simply cannot afford it. If we work together, Republican and Democrat, CEO and environmentalist, we are capable, and we can achieve energy independence. Mr. Speaker, this issue is more than economics, it is one of national security. As long as America relies on OPEC and foreign countries for more than half of our daily energy needs, we are vulnerable. And there is no need why the most prosperous Nation in the world cannot take responsibility for our own energy needs. It is time for America to take responsibility for America's energy.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cooksey), who has been such a good friend to Texas in all issues, including his help and response to Tropical Storm Allison. I also want to commend my Democratic colleagues, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), for their leadership in this effort as we jointly work together, and to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), who together as a delegation have been working to try to recover and restore some sense of getting back on our feet in our region. This storm was more than just numbers. For many of us who have lived in the area a long time, we have seen a lot of natural disasters in our part of Texas, but Tropical Storm Allison was stunning. While it caught us a bit, it did not look like it was a tough, difficult storm to start with; but the damage was remarkable. It is more than numbers. When I look at the reports each day on the number of homes in my area, as I continue to ask for requests, and the numbers continue to go up and up. In 26 of my communities in North Harris County, in Montgomery County, in Waller and Washington County, we see now over 3,000 homes that have been flooded and need help. That is not including all of the businesses, small businesses, all the road and infrastructure damage. I look at all of the help that has been given by FEMA, the Disaster Assistance Center at Greens Point and all around our region, those people are working tirelessly. All of the volunteers, the firefighters, the police, the United Way agencies. We have wonderful emergency assistance directors in our counties that have I think been awake since the storm hit us. For the families that are hurt so bad, this is so important, because being flooded out is a miserable experience. It is so disheartening and disruptive. And the only thing that keeps us going is the prospect of those who are stepping forward to help us through this time of need, our family, our friends, the community, even FEMA workers who I saw in the centers who had been flooded out themselves in other States, who felt the calling to help in the Houston region. It is because of all of those people that we are recovering today. Mr. Speaker, our region is very strong. We have strong individuals and strong communities; but the assistance that has been provided, both within and without, is irreplaceable. So to all of the volunteers, to all that are helping and continue to help, I wanted to add my ``thank you'' and sincere appreciation for all that you do and continue to do. We cannot thank you enough.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, our community in Houston has been devastated by Tropical Storm Allison. As disheartening as that is, the only thing more disheartening is to hear the demagoguery about it on this floor today. My colleagues in Congress who are using scare tactics to needlessly heap even more misery on to the families and businesses harmed by Allison ought to be ashamed of themselves. I too have a letter. It is from FEMA, not from politicians, and it says, ``FEMA's disaster account has sufficient funding to ensure disaster aid to those victims of Tropical Storm Allison flooding. FEMA assures those in Texas, Louisiana, and Florida fighting to recover now that FEMA stands ready and is able to help them.'' The fact of the matter is that over the next 3 months, we cannot spend the $1.5 billion FEMA has. The fact of the matter is that our accounts will be about a billion and a half dollars for that, like Tropical Storm Floyd has done and, the fact of the matter is, even if it is a little more, in the last 5 years, Congress has allocated $17 billion to help communities recover.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Let me state the facts directly from FEMA, those on the ground and working: ``FEMA's disaster account has sufficient funding to ensure disaster aid to those victims of Tropical Storm Allison flooding. FEMA assures those in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, fighting to recover now, that FEMA stands ready and able to help them.'' This issue deals with affecting future response efforts and our ability to help them. The fact of the matter is, the gentleman and I are friends, but the gentleman is playing politics at a time when our community simply cannot afford it. We need to work together.