Kevin Brady

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the ``Orphan Drug Tax Credit Act of 2001''. The purpose of this legislation is to remedy a problem that has arisen with regard to the Orphan Drug Tax Credit. This credit, which Congress made permanent in 1996, was enacted in order to encourage biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies to develop therapies for rare diseases and conditions. The credit applies to 50% of qualified clinical trial expenses incurred with respect to drugs that are designated as ``orphan'' by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The designation process requires a finding by the FDA that the drug under development meets the statutory definition of an ``orphan'', that it is intended for treatment of a patient population of less than 200,000. Unfortunately, this process can take from two months to longer than a year. The end result, is that in some cases, companies find themselves in the difficult position of either having to: (1) postpone the start of their clinical trials until the designation is received, thereby delaying important research and patient access; (2) or beginning the research before designation, thereby increasing the cost of the product's development. Neither choice is in the interest of the patient. The ``Orphan Drug Tax Credit of 2001'' would solve this dilemma by providing that the credit will cover the costs of qualified clinical trial expenses of a designated orphan drug, regardless of whether such expenses were incurred before or after the designation was granted, provided the designation was actually received. This legislation would go into effect upon the date of enactment. This bill passed both the House and Senate twice in the last Congress. It was included in H.R. 2488, the ``Financial Freedom Act of 1999'' which was vetoed by President Clinton for unrelated reasons. The provision was also included in H.R. 2990, which passed the House on October 6, 1999, and in H.R. 4577, the ``Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2001,'' which passed the Senate on July 10, 2000. The time has arrived for us to move this legislation in final form and I am hopeful that it can be included in a tax package this year.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 526. My name was mistaken for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Robert Brady).

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the American people are a lot smarter than folks in Washington give them credit for. They know that tax cuts do not cause deficit spending; spending causes deficit spending. They understand that today they are footing the bill for a million dollar, two-hole outhouse, that is a million dollars for an outhouse the Parks Department recently built. They know that they are footing each year $2,000 a fish each year to help some salmon get back to their spawning ground. For $2,000, we could put each fish in a first class seat and fly them from the mouth of the river and back and still save money. Common sense says the best way to pay down the debt and to keep these surpluses going is to keep our economy strong, and that is what this tax relief bill is about. We are facing recession, and we are working hard to stay out of it; but we know if a recession occurs, that 3 million American families will lose their jobs. That is 3 million families that are going to have a lot of hurt. Now, maybe we cannot save all of those jobs, but we can surely save some of them; and there is a good chance we can save a lot of them, and we ought to do our very best to do that. I know there is a lot of pressure on my Democratic friends to not go along with the President, to not work with him; there is a lot of bitterness from the past election. But those who will be laid off are not Republicans or Democrats, and the small businesses and their employees are not Republicans or Democrats, they are Americans. I would ask them to work with us to try to save this economy.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain the section of the report dealing with one of our government employees, Mr. Robert Berman, and how he failed to comply with the subpoena for testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on July 11 of this year. Let me tell you though why we are not here today. We are not here, even though, as I see it, evidence shows that a special interest group paid two of our government officials, who illegally and unethically used their insider information gained from their position of public trust to line their pockets and that of a special interest group. That is corruption, and it is wrong. But that is not for Congress to decide; that is for the courts to decide. We are here for something even more important than that. It is to ensure that when Congress seeks the truth for the American public, when we ask a fair question on a serious matter, that we receive an honest, timely answer. It is the authority Congress needed to get to the truth behind Watergate. It is the authority Congress has needed to question industries who deny that they sell their products to young minors. It is the authority we require to expose the IRS when they break their own rules to harass taxpayers. It is the authority we require to hold companies accountable when they sell unsafe products; when the government reaches agreements to sell nuclear weapons to rogue nations. It is the authority of Congress to seek the truth, and while we may not like doing it, it is our obligation. Let me tell you, in each of those cases, you heard the same compliant: it is a witch hunt; we are being manipulated; this is Big Oil; this is Big Something; we are the good guys. But the fact of the matter is, with these two government insiders and this special interest group, they are not the good guys. We are simply seeking the truth. First, for the record, let me tell you, Mr. Berman is an employee of the U.S. Department of Interior who received a large amount of money in return for access and information. He was responsible for analyzing developing oil royalty policy for the Interior Department. All the available evidence, even POGO, the special interest group's own statements, suggest Mr. Berman was paid as a government insider because he agreed with these groups and had the access and information to provide them. That is against the law. He knows it was wrong. He knows that Congress has every right to ask him about that. Think about this: if someone comes to you at your job and says, ``Look, do not tell your boss this, but you are working on a key project for us. We would like to make you part of a lawsuit so that when we receive dollars in settlement from this, we can pay you for that information. Now, do not tell your boss, do not remove yourself from that project, because this is how the agreement works.'' You would know something was wrong. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue, because it gets worse than this.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we asked. To the attorney for the special interest group we asked, ``Did you have knowledge of this lawsuit that was under seal, that was held confidential by the Court?'' All he had to do was answer, ``No, of course not. I am a private citizen. Why would I know of a sealed document?'' Of the two government employees, we wanted to ask, ``What service did you provide to receive three-quarters of a million dollars?'' Because one does not get something for nothing in this world. We could never get these basic pertinent questions answered. That is the truth we were seeking.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is the time of year when history gets rewritten in politics; when people like President Clinton take credit for welfare reform that he vetoed repeatedly. Who was actually responsible for getting the compass going in the right direction can be quite confusing. For that reason, I would like to set the record straight. I think the American people can be proud of the progress the Republican Congress has shown. Just a few years before we got here, this administration forecast budget deficits of $200 billion or more as far as the eye could see, and they said that the deficit is not a problem; that it is not an issue for us. Well, Republicans reversed that. In 1998, we balanced the budget for the first time in decades. The next year we stopped a 40-year raid on Social Security, where our Social Security surplus was being diverted to other programs instead of being saved for retirement. And this year, because of that fiscal responsibility, we have a budget surplus. That only means we have to work harder to be fiscally responsible and not allow the White House to go on another spending spree. We think the best responsibility is paying down the debt.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on International Relations, I am convinced that foreign assistance is a good investment for America in two cases, where it strengthens our national security and where it exports our values of freedom, democracy, free enterprise, freedom of speech and religion, all of our exports. Foreign assistance, when it hits the mark, can make a real difference for America; and I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the ranking member on this issue when we have hit that mark. One area of the bill, though, I am terribly disappointed in and it deals with heavily indebted poor countries but probably not an area that we are thinking of. I think in addition to providing them a fresh start, I had hoped that we would also get in return a measure of justice for America and for American families of violent crime. Here is the problem. It used to be in past days that criminals would flee justice by running to the county line or to the State line. Today, criminals run to another country or to another continent. As a result, Americans are victims of violent crime, child abduction, terrorism, money laundering, drug trafficking; and we have very little hope of returning these criminals to face American justice. That is because many of our treaties with other countries are outdated, but most importantly because 40 percent of the world is a safe haven for these criminals. They have no agreement with America to return them for justice here. Mr. Speaker, 35 of those countries happen to be heavily indebted poor countries; and I was hopeful that in this bill, we would have a provision that said in return for this fresh start, work with us to begin negotiations on extradition treaties. Not that they have to have one in place, because those take time, they have to be negotiated, they have to be thoughtful; but only that they responsibly sit down with America to discuss, to start negotiations so we can close safe havens. I do not think it is fair that we subsidize any country anywhere that would harbor the terrorists that attacked the U.S.S. Cole recently. This issue will not be going away, and I am hopeful that we can work in a bipartisan manner to address this in the future.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4002.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4002) to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to revise and improve provisions relating to famine prevention and freedom from hunger, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. BRADY of TEXAS

Mr. BRADY of TEXAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 149) to correct the enrollment of H.R. 3244, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor from the following bills: House Resolution 184, H.R. 745, H.R. 1640, and H.R. 3634. I believe there may have been some confusion with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady).

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that it takes two to fight. Well, it takes two to govern as well. Sadly, many of my Democratic friends have decided it is not in their best interest, not in their party's interest to help us govern for America, even though Speaker Hastert daily extends his hand, is willing to meet more than halfway to solve America's problems. I have a simple request to my Democratic colleagues: Put America ahead of your ambitions. Set aside just for a few days your all- consuming drive to be in power. For the sake of our seniors, work with us to pass a prescription drug plan for the sickest and the poorest of our elderly now, not next year or 10 years in the future. For the sake of our children, work with us to have an education system that is second to none, where our quick learners are not forgotten, where our slow learners are not left behind. For the sake of our grandchildren, work with us to pay down the debt so they do not have a crushing burden that they do not deserve on them. I do not think that is too much to ask. Our Constitution says that, when one has a divided government, it is our responsibility to work together for the interest of America. I am hopeful our Democratic friends will stop viewing this as a Democratic White House and Republican Congress but more as a U.S. President and a U.S. Congress to work together.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on this important issue. This is not very complex, Mr. Speaker. This is about certain principles. All the bills that we vote on here in Washington, it is not about Hollywood, it is not about white papers and policy positions. To my way of thinking, we are talking about real people and what type of signal we send them in everything we do here in Washington. This is legislation where again we send a signal to people. In Washington, we like to discourage people from doing the right thing. For some reason we have got a tax code that punishes people who do the right thing. People who go to school to get a job and a skill, those who marry, those who work hard, maybe invest some money for their own retirement, who put their money together perhaps and with their spouse work hard to have a small business, people who save for retirement who have a dream that someday their kids will go to college and they will get everyone settled in and they will have some time for themselves after all these years. Those are the people that we tax the highest and regulate the most. We discourage them from doing the right thing. My fear is that people are going to stop doing things that they are punished for. Young people are smart these days. They figure out that if government is going to take care of me, why should I go that extra mile? Why should I work hard? Why should I save? Why should I dream about a retirement? Because Uncle Sam is going to take care of me. We all know that is not the case anymore. We know that it always comes back to you and me and our actions. That determines our type of life. What we are doing here today is encouraging people to save. We are encouraging people to dream about their retirement and to save for it. And if they have invested at this point in their life and they are either elderly or they are widowed, they do not have the spouse that has been with them so long, or perhaps they are disabled, what we are saying here is we do not think it is right and we do not think it is fair to tax people because they have saved, because they have put money away, because maybe they started a small business or maybe they kept their family farm going. By the way, we are not taxing them to put that money back into Social Security. Absolutely not. We are diverting it for other uses, some of it to Medicare, most of it diverted to other uses up here. So you have got to ask, will there be an impact from this? Will there be a cost from this repeal? Absolutely. We cannot afford more $900 hammers. Maybe we will not be able to afford the 450th different education program. Maybe we will have to have one less. Maybe we cannot have as many different agencies that all do exactly the same thing and do not talk to each other. There will be a cost to it because you have to do this responsibly. From my way of thinking, setting a priority on seniors, on the disabled, on widows, on survivors who have worked hard to do the right thing is the right thing to do for America. Just to make a point, people tell you that this is taxing and a repeal for the wealthy. Only in Washington are you wealthy if you make $30,000 or so a year. $30,000 does not go very far these days. You look at, especially seniors, a lot of them are raising their grandchildren these days. People start families earlier. It is not unusual to have them in college. Look at all the costs of living anymore. Only in Washington would we tell you that you are wealthy and rich if you have saved and make about $30,000 a year. That is wrong. We know in the real world that people need every help they can to make ends meet every month. This repeal is the right thing to do for America. It is right on principle and encourages the things that help build America and help all of us try to reach our dream in retirement.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4002, the Famine Prevention and Freedom From Hunger Improvement Act of 2000. Before I talk about the legislation, I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his leadership in this effort. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) for agreeing to be the lead Democrat on this bill and make this truly a bipartisan effort. I also appreciate and commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), their staffs working so well together to ensure this bipartisan legislation could be considered today. Finally, most importantly, I want to thank one of my constituents, Dr. Ed Price from Texas A&M University, who came to me with the framework for this legislation after working on behalf of the Board of International Food and Agriculture Development, and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Without the help of Dr. Price and Texas A&M University, it is unlikely we would be considering this legislation today. Briefly, Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act, which is known as the Famine Prevention and Freedom From Hunger Act, was enacted in 1975 to increase world food production and to identify solutions to food and nutrition problems in developing countries. According to USAID, the goal to increase world food production has been met. That is the good news. Unfortunately, USAID believes that we have not been as successful at solving the other goal, food and nutrition problems, in developing countries, poorer countries. Specifically, under H.R. 4002, we address that problem. We broaden the scope of agriculture to reflect a more modern industry, and we expand the ability of participants to be eligible to participate in Title XII programs so that the valuable resources of our universities will be better utilized. We also encourage nongovernmental organizations to work with universities; and these changes, we believe, will result in better partnerships with the Agency for International Development, improved service to the assisted countries, and greater trade and research benefits to us here in America. This legislation will also help America's agriculture. As Title XII is currently written, we focus on ag research, but this modernization is designed to make extension a more implicit part of Title XII. This will help bring the lessons we learn overseas to our farms, which is important because developing nation markets are the fastest growing markets for U.S. farm products and anything we can do to help speed along their development will help our farmers. Improved agriculture is necessary to meet the objectives of U.S. foreign assistance, such as improved human health, child survival, democratization, and free enterprise. Furthermore, improving foods for health, flavor and productivity require the assistance of international programs such as those sponsored under Title XII. Madam Speaker, as the ag industry and our Nation's international development efforts have changed over the past 25 years, the time has come to update this important section to again emphasize the vital role U.S. universities and others can have in our country's international ag development efforts. With over 800 million people worldwide still suffering from inadequate food supplies and associated malnutrition, this update is needed.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 414. I was inadvertently detained and was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments and contributions of the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University to improved safety on our nations highways. This year marks a historic occasion for the institute as they celebrate their 50th year. Since its inception, the Texas Transportation Institute has conducted applied research in all modes of transportation and transferred the results to the public and private sectors, enhancing transportation safety, efficiency and sustainability, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Dr. Herbert H. Richardson and the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). Looking back on the history of the Institute gives us an interesting perspective on how far we've come in terms of transportation and technological advances. I was interested to note that some of the earliest safety research performed by TTI was to develop safer roadside structures, including breakaway supports and impact attenuation systems. As you are aware, one of the first real-world tests of a breakaway sign occurred in September 1965 when a driver lost control of his vehicle and skidded into an ``EXIT'' sign on IH-10 near Beaumont. Less than 24 hours before the accident, the local THD maintenance force had placed the TTI-designed slip base and hinge sign support in place of the old fixed one. In this accident, the driver and passenger escaped uninjured, and the vehicle sustained only minor damage. Less than a year earlier, a driver hit the same sign, then mounted on a standard base, and was killed. Today, highway safety is still an issue of major concern and I am pleased that TTI has continued to develop technological advances, such as the ADIEM crach cushion, to make our nation's roads and highways safer. Many Americans owe their lives to the development of this technology, which is now in use in nearly 40 states. You and the Institute can certainly be proud of the work. In the 1950's, Dean of the College of Engineering, Fred Benson was quoted in the Daily Eagle as saying ``The Institute intends to assemble a group of men at this college with a thorough knowledge of all types of transportation. These men . . . will provide a forum for analyzing and discussing problems [and] will outline and guide our research program and provide high level education to mature students with an interest in transportation.'' Given the fact that TTI employs about 570 people, is home to four National Research Clearinghouses and eight National Research Centers, and has urban laboratories in every major metropolitan area in the state, I am certain that Dr. Benson would indeed be very proud of the men and women of TTI and their many accomplishments. I extend to them my heartfelt congratulations and best wished for the next 50 years.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to one of my constituents, a very special man, Dr. Walter Wilkerson, Jr., who, on June 24 of this year, will be stepping down as Chairman of the Texas Board of Health. Dr. Wilkerson was appointed to the Texas Board on June 7, 1995; and shortly after that, on September 1, Texas Governor George W. Bush named him chairman. We are fortunate in Texas that, although his term as chairman is ending, he will continue to serve on the Board of Health. As chairman, Dr. Eriksson took on the health care needs of every single Texan, building an awareness that public health is for everyone, every day, and everywhere. He has been a listener who steered his board and agency to consensus on almost every difficult issue that came before it. Furthermore, under his tenure, the Texas Board of Health has had a strong relationship with the Texas Medical Association, made significant strides in developing a partnership with local health directors and local health policymakers. He has made a significant effort to maintain an open and respectful dialog with the business communities. And all of Dr. Wilkerson's efforts have been designed at building a cooperative environment for the betterment of the health of every Texan. At the beginning of his tenure on the Board, he retired from private practice in Conroe, Texas, to be joined in 1958 after graduating from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in 1955. In 1951, Dr. Wilkerson received his Bachelor of Science degree from Texas A&M University, which I am proud to represent. While a practicing physician in Conroe, though he sought no honors, Dr. Wilkerson was named Outstanding Citizen of Montgomery County in 1974 and in 1991 was the Texas Family Physician of the Year and named by the Texas Academy of Family Physicians. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Wilkerson is a man of integrity and dedication; and Texas is a much better place because he agreed to answer the Governor's call and provide us leadership. I am honored to call him my friend.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and my colleague from Louisiana, John Cooksey, who also serves with me on the House International Relations Committee, I would like to take a moment to recognize and congratulate the Bulgarian Government--particularly Prime Minister Ivan Kostov and Deputy Prime Minister Peter Zhotev--for the significant efforts that the Government has made over the last two years to strengthen Bulgaria's economy, and in particular, Bulgaria's energy sector. After years of economic decline and mismanagement under socialist rule, we are pleased to see that the country's economic picture is now showing solid signs of improvement. In 1999, inflation dropped to 6.2 percent and the country's economy grew by 2.5 percent. In 2000, a 4% level of growth has been targeted and appears to be achievable. There is no doubt, that Prime Minister Kostov and his team have played a key role in making this improved picture possible through a variety of accomplishments, including turning over 70 percent of the country's economic assets to private hands, restoring 95 percent of the country's nationalized farmland to its original owners and, completing nearly 1100 privatization deals in 1999 alone (representing nearly $587 million dollars in proceeds for the Bulgarian treasury). Additionally, the Government recently pledged, over the course of the coming year, to continue progress on a variety of tough anti- corruption, anti-crime, and judicial reform programs and to find new ways to help alleviate poverty and unemployment in the country. The ongoing reforms and the restructuring process that are taking place in the country's energy sector are also impressive and lead to attractive foreign investment opportunities. In this sector, over the coming year, the Government plans to: continue its efforts to eliminate state subsidies; close inefficient production facilities; begin the separation of generation, transmission and distribution assets; and take actions to encourage further foreign investment in the sector. Each of these steps/actions represent an important part of the Governments ongoing efforts to comply with IMF targets and meet the deregulation and environmental standards that will be necessary precursors to eventual European Union membership. We would like to highlight one particularly promising project that the Government is undertaking in the country's energy sector. In conjunction with a well-known U.S. company--Entergy Corporation, this project will modernize one of Bulgaria's important energy facilities: the lignite-fired, Martiza East III plant (located in the town of Stara Zagora, approximately thirty-seven miles from the Turkish border). Once the planned improvements and upgrades are completed at this facility, the plant will meet stringent environmental standards, which will lead to a reduction in levels of sulfur dioxide emissions by at least 90%. In addition, the implementation of the Maritza East III project will also help to ensure that Bulgaria has a sufficient reliable capacity of electricity as it moves to close down a Soviet designed nuclear power plant deemed unsafe by E.U. standards. It is our understanding that Entergy also plans to support the community around the power plant through worker training programs, environmental improvement programs and the identification of a variety of projects for social investment. The Maritza East III project will bolster the Bulgarian economy by the purchase of more than $75 million dollars worth of local goods and services and the creation of 600 construction jobs. In short, we believe this partnership between Bulgaria and Entergy is a win-win situation. We look forward to seeing additional progress in Bulgaria over the coming year and to the country becoming an important, reliable and efficient energy hub in the Balkan region. We also look forward to a growing level of involvement in the country's energy sector by American companies. Congratulations again to the Bulgarian Government for a job well done and to continued progress for a prosperous and peaceful future.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership on this important issue. There is no question the Senate has weakened in effect the strengths of this bill, but it is still very important that we go forward with it. It is still an important piece of legislation. Here is why. In this legislation we are giving Russia a clear choice. Russia can choose to continue to sell and arm America's deadliest enemies and to sell and arm Israel's deadliest enemies, or they can choose to be a partner in peace and prosperity and democracy with the United States. That is a fair choice for Russia to make. It is important to make the right decision because we all have a stake in their transition to democracy and to free enterprise as a nation. But it has been disappointing, and I think their conduct has been dangerous for America. Each year, in effect, Russia erects a tent, and to all within listening distance they proclaim, ``Come see the show on improving democracy and freedom in our nation.'' And each year America is the first in line with billions of dollars to help them make that transition. But each year when we walk inside the tent, it is empty, while out back, behind that tent, Russia is actively and aggressively selling technology and equipment to nations that simply are hateful to the United States and will disrupt the peace process in the Middle East. I think it is important that no American taxpayer have to finance our deadliest enemies. No veteran ought to be paying tax dollars so that Russia can arm our enemies. No single mom struggling to make ends meet ought to have her tax dollars going to damage our security. No service members, or members of our military, ought to ever have their dollars be used against them. But, in effect, today they are. I support this legislation. I support Russia making the right choice, and this choice is long overdue. As a member of the Committee on Science, I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) in adopting an amendment that I offered preserving the existing relationship with Russia on the space station. That was a very key part of this legislation, and overall this bill deserves our support.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 27, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in recognition of a school that has been devoted to achievement since 1949--Crockett Elementary School. Going into their next half of a century, the elementary school in the Bryan Independent School District of Texas has quite a list of accomplishments. In 1993, Crockett Elementary received recognition by the Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association for their Inclusion Program. The school piloted the program in 1991, which received the ``Exemplary Innovative Practices for Special Needs Students'' award, to incorporate their philosophy that all children even those with special needs can learn in a regular education classroom. Also, one of their high achievements is the National Exemplary Award winning H.O.S.T.S. program, which has been on campus for five years. The Helping One Student to Succeed program consists of 200 community members coming in weekly to read with children. Evident in their quantity and quality of awards, the Crockett faculty and staff act jointly to make their initiatives successful. They also have a very active Parent Teacher Organization. As the only inclusion school in Bryan ISD, parents and teachers have spoken at local and national conferences. In effect parents and teachers from all over Texas come to witness the Inclusion Program in action and model their own after Crockett's example. The Texas A&M University College of Education designated Crockett as a Professional Development School in their program--they are the first elementary school designated. In promoting higher education, The Janell Gallion Scholarship Fund, which is funded by student and faculty support, is given annually to a Bryan High School graduate that attended Crockett Elementary. The scholarship was named after the school's dedicated librarian who, as they describe it, ``fought cancer to the very end and never let it affect her work with students.'' Mr. Speaker, I commend the faculty, staff, parents, and students for making Crockett Elementary such a landmark of achievement in the State of Texas. They have set an example for all schools and communities to recognize, and I hope make applicable to their own systems.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to announce that over 30 members will join Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher and myself in introducing the Smart Kids--Safe Kids Act. This bipartisan legislation is designed to help prevent the abuse and abduction of children. In every city in every congressional district across the nation, our children are being led into harms way. While a majority of child abductions are by non-custodial parents, many are not. And helping prevent these kind of tragedies from occurring in the future is something we should all work towards. Unfortunately, this is a threat that knows no boundaries and can happen anytime. For example, on September 12, 1995, in Conroe, Texas, 12-year-old Samuel McKay Everett was lured from home by a family friend on the pretext that his mother and father had been in an awful accident. McKay was then forced into the trunk of a car and driven 300 miles to Louisiana. Tragically, McKay was brutally murdered. Since the time of McKay's abduction, I have worked with his family and friends to help prevent this type of tragedy from happening again. Smart Kids/Safe Kids will amend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act to help make specific safety programs available to our children. It will authorize grants for age--appropriate, developmentally based, or community oriented safety programs for all students, from preschool level through grade 12, that address prevention and education of child abuse and abduction. These programs will focus on teaching students the skills to identify and cope with potentially dangerous and threatening situations. They will also provide guidance to students that encourages them to seek advice for anxiety, threats of abuse, or actual abuse and to confide in a trusted adult regarding an uncomfortable or threatening situation. We can arm our children with effective tools to avoid potentially dangerous situations. When our children know the rules, they are smart kids; and Smart Kids can be Safe Kids. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in recognition of Johnson Elementary School in the Bryan Independent School District on being the first school in Brazos Valley to receive recognition as a national Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. To receive recognition, a school must be nominated by its Chief State School Officer or Council. To achieve this recognition, Johnson Elementary had to pass a rigorous screening and a two-day site visit. The school was evaluated on outcome measures and conditions of effective schooling. These included student focus and support, school organization and culture, challenging standards and curriculum, active teaching and learning, professional community, leadership and educational vitality, school, family, and community partnerships, and indicators of success. This is a monumental accomplishment for the school officials, the teachers and students of Johnson Elementary. I am very proud to have a school that is able to stand up to this rigorous test and achieve such great standing in the Eighth District of Texas. As a representative here in Washington, it is encouraging to see such an educational achievement back home. Johnson Elementary is able to send a message to the American people that with the winning combination of leadership, hard work, caring, vision, and common sense, excellence is the only reward. The school's motto is, ``We develop minds that think and hearts that care.'' I think they stood true to that belief. Mr. Speaker, I, as well as the Bryan-College Station community, applaud Johnson Elementary for its tireless dedication to the importance of education. They have set an example for us all to follow.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I agree so much with what you are saying and examples of duplication and waste that we have here in Washington. Let me conclude with this: My constable back in Magnolia, Texas, is right: 1 percent is nothing, and we can do that especially to save Social Security. It seems to me that this is kind of a hopeful start, to start to trim the fat here in Washington, to start to eliminate obsolete agencies and duplication, just to give people a better bang, a bigger bang for the buck that they send up here because 1 percent savings is so small. And I am convinced that because we are dealing with Social Security and our kids' futures, their retirement, and our neighbors' future and retirement, I guess I would ask that the President rather than the President acting like a Democratic President and perhaps trying to make us just conduct ourselves a Republican Congress, I am convinced that if we acted as an American President, an American Congress, worked together on this, that would solve this. So I ask, Mr. President, join us in cutting wasteful spending that tiny little bit, 1 percent; and we will join with you together, Republicans in Congress and a Democratic President, to save Social Security. But let us stop digging now.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership in trying to cut the waste and fraud and abuse from our government, working hard as a Member, esteemed Member, of this body that has tried to get more bang for the buck, to be the first Congress to balance the budget without using the Social Security Trust Fund to rebuild the defense we all know has us so vulnerable today and to start, finally, after so many decades of deep digging such a deep hole for Social Security, being the first Congress to stop digging, to stop digging a deeper hole and to start rebuilding it; and I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his leadership. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln received a report from one of the generals that the President suspected was probably exaggerating the damage that he had inflicted upon the confederate soldiers in battle. Lincoln said the report reminded him of a man he knew who used to lecture about his travels abroad, but in his lectures often played sort of fast and loose with the facts. Well, the lecturer, knowing he was prone to exaggeration, asked a friend of his to yank on his coattails every time he drifted from the truth. Well, soon after that, the other was telling an audience about a tall building he had seen in his recent trip to Europe. He was describing it, and he said, ``and this building must have been a mile high and a mile and a half long.'' Now just then, feeling a tug on his coattails, someone in the audience called, ``And how wide was the building?'' Scrambling, the lecturer replied quickly, ``Oh, about a foot wide.'' There must be a lot of coattails being tugged over at the White House these days as the President, his dutiful military leaders and agency heads scramble to outdo each other in exaggerating the impact of our tiny 1 percent savings in this large and growing Federal budget. America, I think though, knows best because here is the real question we are facing: Is there anyone in America who does not think Washington cannot become 1 percent more efficient? Is there a taxpayer anywhere who believes that we cannot work 1 percent smarter, 1 percent better? Because these taxpayers know they have, and even government employees we have got, well, we have got a big bureaucracy. We have got some very good people in these agencies, and even they are frustrated with the money they see wasted at work each day. As my local constable, David Hill of Magnolia, told me Monday following a drug awareness program we had before one of our schools for Red Ribbon Week, he said, ``One percent is nothing. Anyone can do that and especially to save Social Security.'' Well, David Hill is right; 1 percent is nothing. Anyone can do that, Mr. Speaker, and especially because we have Social Security at stake. Look at some of the duplication we have. As my colleagues know, just look at some of the duplication we have here in Washington. Despite our best efforts, and I think we are just getting started, we still have more than 500 inner-city programs, 500 different urban aid programs, more than 300 different economic development programs, more than 200 education programs, and recently people were congratulating us because we had consolidated down to only 100 different job training programs. That duplication has a real cost to taxpayers, Mr. Speaker; and it means that we are not helping the people the way we can. In the Committee on Resources, which I serve on, it is the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, I was shocked recently to learn that each year government spends about 1 billion, that is with a ``B,'' $1 billion, helping about 5,000 salmon swim upstream, back upstream each year. The Federal Government share for each fish each year is between 2,000 and $20,000 each year. Literally it is cheaper for us to rent a limousine for each fish or to put them in a first- class airplane seat and fly them to the top of the river each year. That would be cheaper than the way we go about saving these fish today, if indeed we need to. The bottom line, as we all know, there is enough money for defense and health care and Social Security and the essentials here in Washington. There is not enough money for the foolishness. Despite our best efforts, we still have pork barrel projects, and they are real stinkers that we want to root out. People want money left here in Washington so that votes can be traded. Well, last year during the Fast Track debate, one of the Democratic Members of Congress went to the White House to have his arm twisted to support Fast Track, and as he left, he quipped to reporters, ``Well, the good news is I have six new bridges. Now if I only had a river.'' The fact of the matter is that if we leave these dollars in Washington, they are going to go for pork barrel projects, they are going to go for trading votes, and again families and businesses have had to trim their budgets, set priorities. In Texas we all made it through a recession recently. It was not much fun. We all hunkered down, and we did it. But government in Washington has never had to make the tough decisions. In government, Washington does not want to have to tell no to anyone. We do not want to make those tough decisions.