Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 695, a resolution calling for the creation of a ``National Fire Fighter Appreciation Day''. I introduced this legislation to celebrate and honor the brave men and women of America's fire departments. Since 1735, professional and volunteer fire fighters have been an invaluable facet of our communities, towns, and cities. Ever vigilant, this Nation's fire fighters respond quickly to emergencies of all kinds and protect and save lives each and every day. From the earliest days of Benjamin Franklin's Union Fire Company to the famous fire departments of New York City, Chicago, and Boston, every fire station in this country has a proud history and tradition of distinguished service. Today, over one million fire fighters answer the call of duty and perform extraordinary acts of selflessness and valor without hesitation.

In my district alone, the Orange County Fire Authority serves 22 cities with approximately 1,000 fire fighting personnel protecting over one million residents. Southern California's beautiful, yet volatile environment is prone to natural disasters, flash floods, and wildfires. Every year, Orange County fire fighters place themselves on the front lines of these disasters and tirelessly work day and night to rescue endangered residents and prevent damage to cities and land. Recently, we watched as these fire fighters joined those from several other southwestern states to successfully battle the wildfires that raged across Southern California in October. I commend the tremendous bravery of Orange Country fire fighters and am proud to honor each one today on the Floor of the House.

As internal and external threats facing this country change constantly, the role of the fire fighter has also modified and expanded. Not only do fire fighters defend our homes and buildings from fire, the highly trained personnel of the fire department provide emergency medical services, hazardous material response, special rescue response, and terrorism response. Whether it be a daring rescue of a family trapped in a burning house, preventing a forest fire from spreading, responding to the scene of an accident, or providing medical assistance at the location of a terrorist attack, fire fighters significantly impact the lives of Americans every day. And, in some cases, fire fighters have paid the ultimate price and given their lives to protect their surrounding communities. We will never forget these fallen heroes.

In light of the exceptional service of fire fighters across this nation and with full recognition and great respect of their quiet courage and valor, I ask that you join me in support of this resolution to express the desire of the House of Representatives for the establishment of a ``National Fire Fighter Appreciation Day'' to be observed annually. While we can never thank these men and women enough, this proposed national day of honor is a fitting tribute to those that keep sentinel watch over our lives and property.

Madam Speaker, I'm proud to honor America's fire fighters today.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I support this bill today, which is going to leave taxes alone.

And understand that's all it's going to do. It is not cutting taxes on anyone. It's just leaving them where they are.

But yet to do this, the majority Democrats are going to violate their own vaunted PAYGO rule. And I would argue that PAYGO was just a sham to begin with. I mean, you can add $40 million more than last year to the budget. You can add $10 billion more here, $20 billion more there, and you don't have to pay for that. But to leave somebody's taxes alone, somehow you in theory were going to pay for it. But today that's a sham that, even as a sham, the Democrats haven't been able to keep. It goes from a sham to a double sham.

The lesson here is clear: You can balance budgets by holding down spending, and that's what we ought to do.

Mr. Speaker, I spent 25 years in the retail car business, so I know a little bit about cars and fuel economy. I support this bill because it is an effective compromise that will move us towards less dependence on foreign oil while still allowing manufacturers to build cars and trucks that people will want to buy.

This bill clearly represents Congress's intent for fuel economy standards to be regulated through NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Other agencies, like the EPA, may also stake a claim for fuel economy standards. If they do,

it would clearly make no sense for them to establish a different standard than the one being authorized by Congress today. The President said so in an executive order in May, and Congress is saying so today.

Anything any other agency may do must be consistent and harmonized with this act. There can and should be only one national fuel economy standard, and this is it. With this standard, consumers can look forward in the future to cars and trucks with the room and performance that they want, but with the fuel economy and alternative fuels that we need.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the chairman very much for those comments. And as I said, I think what we have reached here is an effective compromise. People will be able to buy cars and trucks if they want. But we will also be moving fuel economy forward.

Mr. Speaker, I opposed both the earlier versions of this bill, of the TRIA bill, but I support this one. This bill is shorter in duration, and it requires more participation by the private sector. Effectively, in the bill the Federal Government is a backstop, a reinsurer facilitating and allowing a private market in terrorism risk insurance.

Now, some that we have heard today say that in this bill the Federal Government doesn't do enough. I disagree. I think it is the goal of this bill, and the goal of this act should be, to facilitate a private market, not to stand in for or subsidize either insurance companies or property owners.

Then there are others who say the Federal Government shouldn't be involved at all in this issue. Again, I disagree. The Federal Government is involved. Does anybody really believe that if there were another terrorist attack on the United States that the Federal Government would not step in to help? Of course they would. The Federal Government always steps in when disasters are too big for State or local governments to handle. And there are similarly casualty events that are too big for the private sector to insure without Federal involvement. Terrorism is one of them.

The best alternative is not to have the government sail in later to facilitate a private market so that property owners and people can insure up front and know where they will be at a minimum if there is a terrorist act. That is what I believe this bill does, and I support it.

Mr. Speaker, you know, I find this whole debate rather perplexing. What the majority party is saying is that in order to leave people's taxes the same, in order to leave them where they are now, they have to raise taxes on somebody else. They have to pay for leaving your taxes alone by raising taxes on somebody else. Now, that's just warped logic. But let's just accept that warped logic for a minute and let's say that somehow leaving taxes alone required being paid for.

What about reducing spending to pay for it? Where in this rule is the ability to have an amendment to do that? What about reducing spending instead of raising taxes?

Now, later this week, we are likely to see a gigantic budget bill that will spend $50 billion more than last year. Where is the pay-for for that? Now, that's pretty clear. If you spend $50 billion, nearly $50 billion more than last year, that's a clear increase in spending for which you would think someone

would want to pay for it. But instead, here you're going to leave people's taxes alone, the same as last year, and somehow that's a tax cut that has to be paid for? The logic is so distorted here, and the rationale is so distorted.

Let's go ahead and spend all this extra money and not pay for it. You know that if you held the line on spending and didn't increase that spending this year and you looked at what that did over a 10-year period, you could almost pay for repealing the alternative minimum tax completely.

But, no, that is not what the majority party is doing. That is not what this rule talks about. That is not what this rule allows. This rule continues this distorted logic that says that spending more money is okay and doesn't have to be paid for but leaving people's taxes alone is not okay.

This rule and this proposal should both lose.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask that while the House consider this energy legislation, that they take into account that the CAFE provision in this bill does nothing to clarify the critical issue of which federal government agency has the lead on regulating fuel economy.

To effectively improve fuel economy there cannot be two separate sets of fuel economy standards--one from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and another from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Having two agencies with inconsistent standards creates substantial regulatory uncertainty, confusion, and duplication of effort.

Most importantly, the legislation gives EPA free rein on the fuel economy issue which would allow them the ability to supersede Congressional authority over CAFE. This could mean that EPA could establish a CAFE standard that far exceeds the standard passed by Congress.

The White House agrees that one agency needs to be the lead entity responsible for a single national regulatory standard. The legislation should have harmonized EPA and NHTSA's distinct roles to regulate fuel economy and emissions.

A single, nationwide fuel economy standard would create certainty and achieve the mutual goal of reducing gasoline consumption in an effective manner.

It is my hope that this problem be remedied.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Lou Bone, Mayor of the City of Tustin, California. Mayor Bone is one of Orange County's most dedicated, distinguished, and honorable citizens. He has had the honor to serve as Mayor of the great city of Tustin twice during his public service career, first in 2005, and now in 2007.

Lou Bone is a second generation Californian, who has lived in Tustin with his wife, Carol, since 1969. He has 40 years of business management experience as a corporate president, and small business owner. He brought his knowledge from the private sector to serve the city of Tustin in 2000.

Madam Speaker, Mayor Bone is an American Citizen with a passion for service. He has a long history of community service, including service as President of Tustin Chamber of

Commerce, Chairman of the Tustin Planning Commission, and Chairman and founding member of Tustin Pride, a community based organization dedicated to making the City of Tustin more attractive.

For his service in the Tustin community as a public servant and businessman, Lou has received several notable awards which include being named Tustin Man of the Year, the California Chamber of Commerce's Small Business Advocate of the Year, and the California Secretary of State's Ingenuity in Business Award.

I know Mr. Bone's family is extremely proud of his accomplishments, as am I. He has worked tirelessly to improve his community and his efforts should be emulated by future public servants in Tustin.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor Mayor Lou Bone today as an outstanding American citizen and public servant.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate and pay tribute to Mr. Aram Bassenian. Mr. Bassenian is a constituent from Laguna Beach, CA and is an outstanding citizen who is a shining example of the American Dream. He participates in many charitable and civic activities, including his active involvement with the Armenian EyeCare Project (AECP). The Armenian EyeCare Project, which does magnificent humanitarian work in Armenia, has honored Mr. Bassenian with the 2007 AECP ``Lifetime Humanitarian Award''.

The Armenian EyeCare Project is a non-profit organization dedicated to the elimination of preventable blindness in Armenia. It was established in 1992 and sponsors programs in direct patient care; medical education and training; public education; and research.

Madam Speaker, Aram Bassenian is a man with a contagious passion for life and helping others. He is proud of his accomplishments, yet humble enough to be grateful for what he has. He is an ardent advocate for the Armenian community both in the United States and around the world. If his plate wasn't full enough already, Aram is one of the top architects in the United States.

I know Mr. Bassenian's wife Terez, daughter Taleene, and son Gregory are extremely proud of his accomplishments. He is a true inspiration to all Americans. He advises young people to ``Focus, specialize, and do not be afraid of hard work. Work creates rhythm in one's life by establishing a health routine. For those who pay their dues, the opportunities that America provides are limitless.''

Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor Aram Bassenian today as the AECP Humanitarian of the Year. Thank you very much.

I thank the ranking member for yielding.

I wish this manager's amendment was going to make this a good bill and improve this bill, but it is not making it a good bill.

We have a patient that is sick. That is the mortgage market. But what we are doing here is practicing medieval medicine. We are bleeding the patient. We're going to make the patient worse.

There's no argument that we ought to be doing something to improve the subprime and generally the mortgage market in this country as it goes forward, but we should not make it worse. And that's what this will do. And it will make it worse by drying up credit. And that's the biggest problem we have right now. People can't get loans for houses. And this is going to make it ever more difficult because it restricts the amount of loans they can get, and it puts in liability as well.

And, you know, it won't hurt the person buying a $1 million house with 50 percent down. That person will be fine. Who it's going to hurt is the person out there buying a $200,000 house with $2,500 in cash and a loan from their uncle. But they've got a good job and they think they can get this thing done. But under this bill, banks and lenders are not going to make that loan. And that's the problem with this bill, and that's why this bill should be roundly defeated.

Let's talk about what is really going on here. If somebody is an alcoholic, they understand they shouldn't drink. What they will do oftentimes is they will ask their friends to help them, you know, come in the house. Make sure I don't have any alcohol here. Keep me honest. Make sure I don't do this.

This Congress is drunk on earmarks. The majority party has said, well, we want to get better. We want to stop drinking. We want to stop doing these bad earmarks, so we set up a point of order on the bill so we can stop this.

But it is the equivalent of the alcoholic saying, I want you to help me, Mr. Speaker, and I want you to come check my house to make sure that I don't have any alcohol, but then locking the door so you can't go in and you can't look. That is what the majority party is doing here.

They say we have this point of order on earmarks, but we are waiving it. We are going to bury them in the bill so you can't see. The majority here in this Congress is not serious about controlling earmarks, and they should be, because of the ones that the gentleman from Arizona read, and whether it is teaching people how to play golf in the defense budget or monuments, to me, whatever it is. We have budget problems, we all agree. We disagree on how to take care of them. But one thing we must do is stop these earmarks, and the majority is not doing that.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at what this bill does. It basically leaves the alternative minimum tax the same as it is now. That is not a tax cut. But to ``pay'' for leaving some taxpayers' taxes alone, they are going to raise other people's taxes. Now, I'm sure that in a moment the gentleman from Massachusetts will give some number of taxpayers in California he says will benefit from this. Those taxpayers will benefit from having their taxes the same as they are now. What the gentleman will not say is the number of taxpayers in California whose taxes will be increased by this bill, and there will be many. So some people's taxes stay the same and others go up.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a straight-up, direct, unadulterated tax increase. It will not be the last straight-up tax increase brought to you by this Congress.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I will be very happy to hear what the answer from the lady from New York is because I think the question before us is if the majority party wants to clean up this earmark process, or do they just want to say they are cleaning up the earmark process when it actually doesn't occur? If we are going to have these rules that enable you to raise points of order on earmarks that have been air-dropped in, we have earmarks air-dropped in which shouldn't happen in the first place. Some of these are clearly inappropriate. But yet all opportunity to raise them against the bill

has been waived. So why are you even doing this? It appears that they are not serious about really stopping or reforming earmarks; they simply want to act like they are. If we are serious, none of these earmarks that were air-dropped in should be allowed.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I stand here before you as a Member of Congress not from Florida; in fact, from California. But I support this bill. If a tsunami were to hit Honolulu, there is not enough insurance base in the entire State for all the types of insurance there could possibly be to cover the effects of that kind of disaster.

I come from California, which is not a small State. It is in fact the largest State. But we have earthquakes. After the Northridge earthquake, you could not buy earthquake insurance pretty much from anywhere at any price in the entire State of California after that earthquake. So even in a large State like California you can have problems getting disaster insurance for various disasters, even today; and it has been a number of years since we have had any significant number of earthquakes in California. The earthquake insurance, currently there's a State program to cover earthquake insurance and it vacillates between not providing very much coverage and being not actuarially sound.

So I support this bill because we do need to look at tsunamis in Hawaii, earthquakes in California, hurricanes in Florida and tornadoes in Kansas, and ways that we can pool those risks. Now, if a disaster of any type hits any one of those States, as I mentioned, that earthquake or that hurricane or that tornado will not discriminate between single families' homes and apartment buildings or commercial property. The amendment that I offer today, Mr. Chairman, would add commercial property to this bill because, as I said, the disasters don't discriminate. But also, when you think about it, if a hurricane hits, and I know the sponsors of this bill are very familiar with that, or an earthquake hits and an apartment building goes down, the people living in that apartment building need that apartment building rebuilt every bit as much as the people in the single family home need their single family home rebuilt.

If jobs and economic activity are to be restored in the region hit by the disaster, then the businesses that were destroyed or severely damaged in that disaster also need to be rebuilt. So what this bill would do is it would not compel any State to include commercial property in their State program. But if a State chooses to include commercial property in their State program, then it could be included in the risk pools that will be set up as a result of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

With the commitment from the gentleman from Florida and the understanding of the chairman of committee that we would hold a hearing on this and that we would then consider perhaps free-standing legislation or putting it in this, if as a result of that hearing we believe that there would be

a way to add the commercial property, with that understanding I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Campbell of California

Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 5, before ``Homeowners' ''

insert ``Business Owners' and' ''.

Page 6, line 15, before ``homeowners'' and insert

``business owners and''.

Page 13, lines 5 and 6, strike ``HOMEOWNERS'''.

Page 13, line 13, before ``homeowners' '' insert ``property

and''.

Page 18, line 9, strike ``personal real''.

Page 20, line 25, insert ``property and'' after ``all''.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Let's make it clear what this bill does not do. What it does not do is it does not prohibit States or localities from putting general application taxes on Internet transactions as they would apply if that transaction were taking place not on the Internet. For example, it does not ban sales taxes on transactions over the Internet, as long as those taxes are the same sales taxes as would be applied if that purchase was transacted in a store or over a catalog, but what it does do is it says you cannot put discriminatory taxes on the Internet.

You cannot take that sales transaction and give it a sales tax that is higher because it was transacted over the Internet than if it were not. It also says that you cannot tax access or use to the Internet.

Can you imagine, can anyone out there imagine that if every time you sent an e-mail there was a tax that went on your credit card or something for using it, or every time you went on a Web site, there was a tax? That's absolutely unconscionable. Particularly today, when we realize how much of the economic growth we have experienced in this decade has come from the Internet and how much distribution of knowledge there has been and how it is a great equalizer that so many people at so many incomes and in so many locations are able to access knowledge that was previously unavailable.

The Internet has been a great engine for economic growth and for the distribution of knowledge. We don't want to slow down that engine by taxing it.

Now I, like I believe every other speaker this morning, wishes that this bill were a permanent ban. I can't imagine a time when we would want to restrict your access to the Internet by taxing it.

However, 4 years is better than zero, and 7 years is better than 4. So this 7-year extension is something that I will heartily support.

However, I also desperately hope that before we get to the day of the expiration of this next 7-year period, that sometime within this 7 years that this Congress realizes and recognizes once and for all that taxing the access to or use of the Internet is a bad idea and makes this ban permanent in the future.