Floor Statements

``Moment of Truth'' is the very appropriately entitled report of the President's bipartisan deficit commission, since it took barely a moment for him to cut a deal with Senate Republicans that spikes our national debt upwards almost a trillion dollars in new borrowing from the Chinese and others. This deal borrows from our future to throw tax money at problems with the efficiency of most of its provisions that you would get if people stood and shoveled out cash at the front door of the Capitol.

Billionaire estate bonuses, or 1 percent of the people getting a giant tax cut--that doesn't provide meaningful job growth.

There is a very good reason we pay Social Security taxes: in order to share in the old-age survivor and disability insurance that is Social Security. This proposed Republican payroll tax holiday is not a day at the beach. It endangers the very fabric of Social Security. That is why the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare has rightfully called this bad deal ``a disaster'' for Social Security.

In a very few months, these same Republican privatizers of Social Security will claim, just as they are tonight about the Bush tax proposal, that we are raising taxes on workers when we seek to end this alleged ``temporary'' payroll tax cut.

This same dangerous deal for Social Security discriminates against so many people, who tonight are on the front lines with their lives, as our firefighters, as our law enforcement officers, as those who educate our children--those who provide vital public services. They don't get a dime out of this provision. Ninety-five percent of the public employees in Massachusetts and a majority of those in the State of Texas get absolutely no benefit from this provision.

This bill undermines a guiding Democratic principle--dignity for seniors--and it undermines 75 years of Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6398) to require the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to fully insure Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and insert extraneous material herein.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank and Mr. Bachus; my colleague and member of the Financial Services Committee, Mrs. Biggert; as well as Leaders Hoyer and Boehner for their assistance in expediting the consideration of this measure.

When an attorney receives funds for use on behalf of a client, those funds are usually deposited in a trust account at some financial institution.

Many years ago, leaders in the legal community across America determined that interest could be earned on such accounts and applied to finance legal services for those who otherwise might have no access to our justice system. They recognized, as we do today, the wisdom of Judge Learned Hand's writing: ``If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment--thou shall not ration justice.''

For decades, revenue from these Interest on Lawyer's Trust Accounts, or IOLTAs as they are commonly referred to, have provided a key funding source for the disadvantaged in all 50 States. Before coming to Congress, I served as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, which sets forth the rules and oversees the operation of such IOLTA accounts in my State.

I saw firsthand the benefits of these programs in ensuring access to justice for those who otherwise might be unable to secure justice. Some of those who need legal assistance the most--veterans who have served honorably, domestic violence victims, and persons with disabilities-- are too often the least able to obtain it. In some States, IOLTA funds are also used to reduce litigation by encouraging conflict resolution outside of the court system.

After hearing a few weeks ago from Terry Tottenham, who is the president of the State Bar of Texas, and after hearing from a number of other local leaders, I introduced this bill to assure continued full FDIC protection for these trust accounts. This protection, which exists today under existing law, would otherwise have expired for these accounts at the end of this year, when the existing law is to be fully replaced by the extensive new Wall Street reform law. Today's legislation simply extends existing Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation protection into the future.

At a time when interest rates are at an all-time low, it is particularly important that there be a complete government-backed guarantee against any loss on these trust accounts. Such protection also ensures that small, independent banks are on a level playing field with their larger competitors in securing these trust fund deposits. This bill is supported by a broad range of groups, including the Independent Community Bankers of America and the American Bar Association. I urge my colleagues to approve it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Illinois has provided further explanation of the nature of this bill. It is a clean proposal. If we do not get this into law before the end of December, there will be some problems presented. So I would hope not only that we would approve it here but that the Senate would act promptly to approve this narrow bill without attaching any other extraneous matter to it.

In closing, I would also extend my thanks to both the Democrat and Republican staffs on the Financial Services Committee for working with us to see that this measure is promptly approved.

I would move adoption of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Listening to the concerns of parents, the hopes of students, and the needs of our local Texas school leaders, today we are responding with essential Federal aid to education, fully paid for by closing international corporate tax loopholes that should never have been there in the first place.

Because we believe in local control of education, we require that the State of Texas specifically forward the new Federal aid to our local school districts, not divert it or spend it on something else. The Texas Association of School Boards, Texas teachers, principals, and school administrators support this legislative approach. Now, those, who have never wanted Texas or any other place in this country to receive a dime of additional Federal aid to education, they complain because we are holding Texas Governor Rick Perry accountable for proper use of these taxpayer dollars. There is absolutely no constitutional limitation on doing right by our Texas schoolchildren. Instead of concocting phony legalistic arguments, Governor Perry and his cohorts here in Congress ought to be joining us in supporting quality public education.

You can be sure that Texas is singled out by this legislation. It was singled out by a Governor who grabbed $3.2 billion of Federal aid to education to bail out a mismanaged State government. That's the only bailout that occurred. It occurred last year in the State of Texas. We didn't send that Federal aid for education to Texas to plug a mismanaged State budget. We sent it to help our schoolchildren.

And so today, in order to avoid history repeating itself, we demand accountability, we demand support for quality public education and local control of education and not more mismanagement and interference from the State of Texas.

Today we close international tax loopholes and open more educational opportunities.

Last year in Texas, Governor Perry and his cohorts misdirected $3.2 billion in Federal aid to education simply to replace State education commitments, leaving our schools not one dime better off than if we had never offered them that Federal aid to education in the first place. Given this very unfortunate history for our schoolchildren and the many unique educational challenges that Texas faces, we have good reason to include in this legislation Texas-specific safeguards to prevent more such shenanigans with a formula that assures that this year Federal education aid will get directly to our local schools. Our approach enjoys the support of school trustees, of superintendents, of principals, of teachers.

We have been listening across Texas to our parents at this time of excitement as so many young people are going back to school, some for the first time, and we are offering those families and those local schools the important support they need for local education, paying for every dime of it, and we are supporting those local education decisions by local school trustees to achieve quality education free of interference from the State. We are demanding accountability from the State of Texas.

For some reason accountability seems like a good concept for everyone except some Republican leaders and some international corporate tax avoiders. I want to be sure that there's a level playing field for taxpayers so that the small business down the street that could face a property tax increase if we don't have adequate support for education, that that business doesn't continue to have to pay a much higher rate than some international corporate tax group that has all the fancy CPAs to avoid paying its fair share.

I thank the gentleman.

After 12 years of Republican rule, our tax code is riddled with loopholes. The small businesses on Main Street, the families that are struggling to get by with both spouses as wage earners, they all continue to shoulder a much heavier tax burden proportionately than the giant multinationals that operate around the world, that have operated here in Washington to lobby their way into one bit of special treatment after another. And many of these loopholes serve only to encourage multinationals to invest overseas instead of investing here at home to create American jobs. For some of them, their number one export is the export of American jobs instead of creating things here in America that we can then export to the world.

This particular bill promotes jobs in America in two ways. First, it recognizes that there is important work that needs to be done here in America, hard work that is worth doing. In Austin, Texas, Build America Bonds were used to build a police substation, to build a public safety training facility, public facilities that we need to protect our neighborhoods, built by private contractors, putting food on the table of private employees. This bill would encourage more of the same for America.

Second, this bill represents the next step in a long-standing effort that I've been a part of to crack down on multinational corporations that get Federal tax breaks only to ship their jobs offshore. It's long past time to stop letting these folks play games with our tax system that actually encourage the export of jobs. It's unfair to small businesses, it's unfair to families, those who are following the rules and paying their taxes in order to finance the tax breaks for those that dodge their fair share of responsibility for our national security, for our homeland security. And making these large corporations pay their fair share, stop the kind of

dodges that aren't available to our small businesses, is pro- competition. This bill helps to level the playing field for small businesses across America.

I think you can assess this particular piece of legislation by its friends and by its foes. Those who build America, groups like the engineers, have endorsed this measure. Those who want to keep dodging their taxes and shifting jobs overseas, they're counting on Republicans to do the same thing they always do, and that is, assure special treatment for special folks.

It is the same kind of thinking that got us the Republican bank bailout. It's the same kind of thinking that's being used here today to defend loopholes that are indefensible when what we ought to be doing is focusing on creating American jobs.

The Republicans do, indeed, have a moratorium. It's a moratorium on cooperation. It's a moratorium on voting for good bills they say they're for. It's a moratorium on reality.

They never miss an opportunity to let their rigid ideology get in the way of us doing something for America, and that's what's happening here today. We reach out a hand on a bill they say they're for and they slap it back.

Let me say just a word about openness in government, which has a lot to do with earmarks and this bill, because it's too often good talk but little meaningful action.

In the past, this very piece of legislation to spend or reduce hundreds of individual tariffs for specific businesses has been a troubling example of government in the shadows. As in previous Congresses, when I first attempted to learn more about what was in this bill, I found it an impenetrable process. Even my efforts as a member of the committee of jurisdiction to determine specifics about this bill were initially thwarted.

True to its name, the Sunlight Foundation shed light on this opaque process. In 2008, it took on the laborious task of creating a database to improve the public's ability to understand who would benefit from the bill, at the request of which lobbyist, and for which corporation.

This year, the Ways and Means Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Levin, has built upon the Sunlight Foundation's laudable work, substantially changing the secretive process of the past that governs the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.

I'm pleased to have worked with the Sunlight Foundation and Chairman Levin to make this official database a reality. Now any citizen can look up the details of this bill, learn who the winners and losers were, and see who pushed them over the finish line. Today we have not only a new name for this legislation, but we have a new process involving public participation and understanding in its development.

This is just the latest example of public access in this Congress. With the encouragement of the Sunlight Foundation and other public interest groups, we must continue building on such success, arming citizens with the tools they need to make informed decisions.

I thank the gentleman.

This rule makes it possible for us to consider today a supplemental appropriations bill that contains some vital support for public education across America.

Now, most schoolchildren learn that 3 plus 3 equals 6. Last year, the schoolchildren of my State of Texas received an unfortunate lesson in State Republican math. In Texas, 3 plus 3 only equaled 3. How is that?

Well, last year, Texas received more than $3 billion in State Stabilization, economic recovery, or stimulus funds designated for our local school districts, for our schoolchildren. But by exploiting ambiguous language, for every dime of Federal support in State Stabilization moneys that went to Texas, the State took away money that it had already committed for the same purpose. So instead of a historic boost in local school support, our schoolchildren were left no better off than if we had not passed the Economic Recovery Act with these provisions at all. The $3 billion more made no difference for our local schools.

Congressional support for our local school districts reflects a two- fold understanding. First, that our local districts know best what the needs of their students and their teachers and administrators are. Second, that especially in times of a difficult economy, we need to invest in public education. A solid education is the foundation on which our economy and our democracy rests.

Now, our Texas Republican leadership disagreed with both those propositions. They balanced the State budget with Federal economic recovery funds at the same time our Governor was out talking about secession and attacking the economic recovery, much as we have heard this morning.

I am hopeful that this supplemental appropriation will include specific language for Texas made at the request of our Texas Democratic Congressional delegation to ensure that this never happens again.

To ensure that any money that goes for teachers and public education in Texas actually goes to improve our schools and the lives of our schoolchildren.

Earlier this month, statewide groups representing teachers, principals, school boards and school administrators joined about 40 superintendents from across the State to endorse this approach. Through this bill today, with specific language for Texas, we can ensure that our goals last year are achieved and we do something at this difficult time to address the needs of our Texas teachers and our Texas schoolchildren.

I hope this rule can be adopted in order to approve this important language.

As one who has repeatedly and vigorously opposed all bank bailouts, whichever President proposed them, I view this bill as modest but very important progress. I'm voting ``yes'' because I stand with working families against big banks, for transparency in the financial markets, with small businesses and family farmers and ranchers for tougher Wall Street oversight, and for progress toward preventing future bank bailouts.

The AARP said, this bill offers ``new tools to combat investment scams targeted at older adults'' and will hold ``scam artists accountable.'' The Consumer Federation of America says these reforms will ``improve the marketplace for consumers and investors.''

If you're mugged on the street, you could lose your wallet. But if you're mugged by Wall Street, as too many Americans have been, you can lose a lifetime of savings.

This bill arms families with more ways to protect themselves with the information that they need for informed financial decisions. It addresses protections for questionable, often outrageous, financial industry practices, preventing onerous hidden fees that have plagued credit card holders and borrowers, and it creates a new hotline to report misconduct.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will offer help against unscrupulous mortgage promoters, foreclosure scam operators, and payday and student lenders.

This bill should have done more, much more about those Wall Street interests that are paid too much, taxed too little, and whose immense power continues to threaten our economic stability. But with stubborn opposition from Republicans, both here and especially over in the Senate, as well as rejection of some reform by the Treasury Department, we lack the more complete reforms, but we are making significant strides forward in offering consumer protection that Americans really deserve.

Restoring discipline, supervision, accountability, and transparency will only be opposed by those who unfairly profit at the expense of working and retired Americans. Whether it's savings for a soon-to-be college student, or an investment in a home or a retirement nest egg, this bill will provide greater security and peace of mind. Let us adopt it promptly.

Madam Speaker, let's keep America the best democracy, not the best democracy that money can buy.

The pollution of our political process with tens of millions of dollars in spending by the world's largest multinational corporations strikes at the very heart of our American democracy. Whatever these giant interests cannot already get with their army of lobbyists here in Washington and with the millions of dollars that their executives already contribute to campaigns, they now want to buy directly with money from their corporate treasuries--and they are no fools.

The limitless dollars that these folks lavish on elections are simply wise investments for many of them. They are well designed to spend a few million now in order to claim a few billion dollars in unjustified spending from the public treasury later. Often, the same folks who are reaching into the public

purse are the folks who, through special tax expenditures and tax loopholes, don't contribute but pennies on the dollar compared to what a small business might be having to pay in its corporate tax rate or what a working or middle-class family might be having to pay, struggling to make ends meet.

Without the DISCLOSE Act, a tobacco company can come here masquerading as a phony ``health care'' coalition. A Wall Street bank can come and ask for another bailout, claiming that it is part of a ``consumer alliance.'' A polluter can defeat those who want to hold it accountable by asserting that it is part of ``Citizens for Clean Air and Clean Beaches.'' Insurance monopolies determined to deny American families access to care at prices they can afford are already out there with groups like Americans for Better Health Care, which is really designed to stymie families efforts to access health care.

DISCLOSE Act opponents have a great deal not to disclose. They want to be assassins, silent assassins of character, where they buy one hate ad after another while denying the public an opportunity to know that the views being expressed in that 30 seconds are, in fact, limited to those of a narrow corporate self-interest that is determined never to be held accountable for its misconduct.

The public, without the power of these corporate deep pockets, would also be denied access to the knowledge of who is really wielding the power. Who can look at Washington these days and say that the problem up here is too little influence of corporate cash?

A vote for the DISCLOSE Act is a vote to stop the corruption of our political system and to stop the slide into plutocracy. It is a vote for a fully-informed and fully-empowered American people to take charge of our democracy and to ensure the change that will make a meaningful difference in the lives of our families.

I urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, regarding these ill-considered arguments against the treaty-shopping provisions that allow a handful of firms to dodge their responsibilities to fund our national and homeland security, let's get the facts straight.

First, there is not one company headquartered in the United States that will pay one cent of additional taxes as a result of these provisions. Number two, there is not one company that is headquartered in a foreign country with whom we have a tax treaty that will pay one cent of additional taxes. And that covers, by the way, over 90 percent of all foreign investment in the United States that we were just hearing about, over 90 percent not touched whatsoever if they are headquartered in a country with a tax treaty.

What it does touch is the minority, defended by the Republican Party, that are determined to dodge their fair share of the cost of running America. Those are companies that are headquartered in tax havens that set up their operations specifically to dodge their tax responsibility. We believe they ought to follow the same rules as American-owned companies, as American-headquartered companies.

It is amazing to me that the same folks who would defend the flim- flam artists at Enron from dodging their tax responsibilities, that would defend the American corporations that renounce their American citizenship to move to some sunny tax haven, are now defending this small minority of firms that will not pay their fair share of American taxes.

And what of this phony argument that we are somehow violating our tax treaty responsibilities: well, it is just that, it is phony because this measure is actually an incentive to support the tax treaty system. That is where over 90 percent of the investment already is; and so we are saying, as the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation concluded, this provides an incentive for any responsible foreign investor to locate in a treaty country. The treaties are set up to help American companies. That is what these companies should do.

The last Administration offered proposals to address this time after time, and a Republican Congress wouldn't approve them. That is one of the reasons we need to take this firm action today. We see the benefits of doing that in the almost $8 billion that are raised not from American companies but from companies that are located in these tax-haven locations.

We are in no way saying that this is the same legislative language that the Bush Administration recommended. We are saying it addresses the same problem and that you

didn't like the Bush Administration approach any better than you liked the Obama Administration approach, any better than you like this approach. And the only beneficiaries of this obstruction to a legislative answer are the same tax dodgers in these tax havens that have been avoiding their responsibility. We want to level the playing field. We don't want to shirk treaty responsibilities. We want an incentive to encourage every one of these companies to go to a tax treaty country.

So very fearful of being held accountable, the giant insurance monopolies have spent millions spewing out anger and spreading fear of reform. We have not seen such outlandish, outrageous arguments raised since the same forces failed to block President Lyndon Johnson from securing approval of Medicare.

For Republicans, our bill is too long or it is too short. It is too thick or it is too thin. It is never just right because their true answer to health insurance reform is ``never, never, never.'' Our determined efforts should not be derided as a four-letter word, but you can certainly sum up our many, many pages with four words: you've got health care.

With this reform, every insured American gets valuable consumer protections, and every uninsured American can become insured. Thirty- two million Americans will be protected from the risk of bankruptcy from health care.

The bill restrains soaring insurance premiums and reduces Federal deficits.

My time has expired, but many Americans will not, as a result of this bill.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Today, so very late, represents the first real House debate on Afghanistan since President Obama announced that the path to peace could only be found through wider war. I have continually challenged that policy. But because our security, I believe, will not be found in either the false choice of ``more troops in'' or ``all out now,'' I cannot support the resolution, as I do not support our current strategy in Afghanistan.

This December escalation announcement by the President was counterproductive and somewhat misleading. He tried to have it both ways. He pledged to begin withdrawing troops in July 2011, but his plan continues sending troops through near the end of this year. Defense Secretary Gates was more candid. He says that any withdrawal next year will be a ``handful,'' that there is no real Afghanistan exit strategy, and that a large military presence is planned there for ``a very long time.''

With our unceasing commitment to American blood and treasure being poured into Afghanistan, there is no meaningful pressure on President Karzai and his drug dealer and warlord cohorts. They have been much less interested in undertaking the steps necessary to secure peace than in clinging to power and wealth, such as by stealing one-third of the votes in the last election. I believe that the calls for reform have been greeted since that time by Mr. Karzai only by taking over the independent election commission that questioned that election and by the appointment of multiple drug warlord types to the cabinet who are part of the problem. In Afghanistan, reform is a slogan, it is not a reality.

We have exercised minimal leverage over Karzai and his cronies, who view our continuing presence there as an invitation to steal all they can get when they get it. The better exit strategy is having fewer troops who need to exit. I agree with General Eikenberry, our former commander and now ambassador, who last November questioned an escalation that would only ``bring vastly increased costs and an indefinite, large-scale U.S. military role.'' He wisely concluded that further increases would ``dig us in more deeply.''

In 2001, I voted for the use of force against the enemies that attacked us, and I continue to support that effort. But unless we pursue a different approach with a more narrow military footprint and a pragmatic exit strategy, we will remain embroiled in a land that has entrapped so many foreign powers throughout the centuries Afghanistan can consume as many lives and as many dollars as we are willing to expend there. As in Iraq, we are on a course for a trillion-dollar war waged on borrowed money. That must be changed to save American lives and America's future.

I thank the gentlelady.

I oppose neither the rule nor the transportation funding in this bill, but I do oppose the so-called ``jobs'' tax credit. I only have one big problem with it, that it does so little to create jobs while adding to our very big debt.

In deciding whether to waste more resources on such legislation that will not accomplish its purpose, I think it's important that we look at one of the last jobs bills that this Congress considered. We were told that the only way to extend unemployment benefits to families in need through Christmas was to simultaneously approve a measure that sent $33 billion to corporations with no requirement that they use their cash windfall to create or preserve jobs.

The so-called ``loss carry-back'' provision simply directed the Treasury to begin writing checks, $33 billion in checks this year, to corporations. One corporation, a bankrupt financial services company, Washington Mutual, got $2.6 billion in checks this year from the Treasury. That just happens to be a little more than all of the unemployed people in America combined got from this piece of legislation. So I think we need to take a close look at every piece of legislation to see whether it really creates jobs as this one did not.

Today, we have another tax break that is weak on policy, strong on politics. It's a retread proposal that this Congress rejected last year, and it doesn't smell any better this year. Indeed, one former Treasury Department economist has described ``a general consensus among tax experts that the credit is a [real] stinker'' because it simply encourages conduct that would occur anyway.

Amazingly, one current top leader at the Treasury Department has said, Don't worry, it may be 10 percent effective in creating new jobs. I don't think that passes the sniff test. Surely there are better ways to promote job growth than a proposal whose own advocates say it may be 90 percent ineffective.

And being ineffective does not mean that it is harmless since it disadvantages some businesses in the marketplace versus their competitors. Those small businesses in Central Texas who have hung on to their employees, even though it hurt, even though it was painful to do so, get absolutely no benefit from this job tax credit, although they certainly could use it, but a company that dismissed its employees last year or a new competitor that moves into town down the street will gain a benefit.

As the Congressional Budget Office has noted, this jobs credit would provide no incentive to maintain employment in struggling firms and provides less incentive to maintain employment overall in industries and regions that are hurting the most. While it may deliver a few temporary minimum-wage jobs at considerable expense to the United States Treasury, this credit won't deliver help where it is needed most, and to whom or with whom it is needed the most. It is off-target and off-budget. I think it has the same problem as a bill that gave more money to one bankrupt corporation than to all the unemployed people in our country.

It's great that the United States Senate could finally find bipartisan agreement on something, but this bill, this job tax credit, is not just bipartisan from the Senate, it's bi-wrong.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Louisiana for their important comments. The recent suicide attack in my hometown of Austin, Texas, on an IRS building was a horrible tragedy. I authored this resolution to honor those who were victims, to recognize the courage that was displayed by so many that day, and to condemn such cowardly acts of violence.

Seeing that building aflame after this premeditated suicide attack which was, in the words of Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell, ``perpetrated in rage without any regard for the sanctity of human life,'' I was just amazed that not more of our neighbors were harmed. In large measure, this was the result of the valor and professionalism amidst the flames and the chaos of the Federal workers, others who came upon the scene, and our local first responders.

Leaders of these well-trained professionals who rose to the call of duty that day include our Austin Police Chief, Art Acevedo; our Fire Chief, Rhoda Mae Kerr; our EMS Director, Ernie Rodriguez; and Travis County HAZMAT Chief, Gary Warren who, with the Westlake Fire Department, was fortunately near the site of the attack and raced into action. And I know

that the neighboring Grace Covenant Church has already offered support and solace for many following the attack.

This resolution also recognizes Robin De Haven. Robin, an Iraqi veteran and a technician with Binswanger Glass, was driving by and was one of the first to rush to the scene as he saw the attack. Without a moment's hesitation, he stopped his truck, got out his ladder, and despite the fire, the heat, the smoke and the chaos, he rescued employees from the second floor of the building.

As the saying goes, ``it's easy to be brave from a distance,'' but Robin showed his bravery close up, very close up, and in doing so, he helped many people escape injury. Last week he became the first Austinite to receive a ``challenge coin,'' recognizing his quick thinking and courage from all three of the city's public safety organizations.

There is the spirit and courage of the Austin IRS employees, whose calm and orderly evacuation saved lives. They were recognized by the prompt visit of IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman, Treasury Secretary Geithner, and Colleen Kelley, the president of the National Treasury Employees Union, who heard firsthand what these employees experienced.

Frankly, all in the building that day were heroes, and we cannot know the names of all who acted with courage. But a few stories that were shared with me by the employees I think are typical: Alfredo Valdespino, who guided employees out of the building and then ran back inside to offer more help. Also returning to help a missing colleague was Richard Lee. David Irving carried a disabled coworker down the stairs and out of the building on his back. Armando Valdez, Jr., and Deborah Fleming yelled to other employees, ``Follow my voice,'' as they guided them away from falling through the gaping holes in the floor. Andrew Jacobson and Morgan Johnson broke out a window and allowed employees to climb out through Robin De Haven's ladder.

That tragic day, even as work continued at the scene, however, after this deadly assault on Federal employees, a Facebook page was created that lauded the killer. This response to violence is deplorable. Intense debate as we have here on this floor about our Tax Code is appropriate. That's what we do here in Congress and in gatherings across the country. There are many tax provisions that I have personally criticized in the strongest terms, and at times I have also criticized the way the IRS has administered the Tax Code. But to demonize and harm public servants who are serving our country at the IRS while praising a murderer or anyone else who would do them harm is outrageous.

Nor is such misconduct unique to this tragedy. According to the Wall Street Journal, the number of threats against IRS employees are on the rise. Just this week, the Austin American-Statesman reported about another local agent's necessary care in opening mail filled with razor blades and pushpins, about last year's phony anthrax attack on another Austin IRS building and an earlier plot to blow up another Austin IRS building. Each year, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, which oversees the IRS, investigates more than 900 threats against IRS employees, including violence.

Let me be clear: I'm not here today to glorify the IRS. I'm here to condemn unequivocally through this resolution those who would glorify violence against our public employees who are properly conducting their duties in service to our Nation.

There are many who will long bear the emotional scars from this attack, and some still cope with the physical burdens. I want especially to recognize Shane Hill, a 5-year investigator with the Texas State Comptroller's office who happened to be in the building that day and now with his family faces a very long physical recovery.

Vernon Hunter has been mentioned. Known by his friends as Vern, he lost his life in this senseless attack. At his funeral last Friday, he was described as the type of man who always woke up with a smile, always wanted to help others, and as a Texan, never left home without his cowboy hat. Coming from a family dedicated to uniformed service, he served in the U.S. Army for over two decades, which included two tours of duty in Vietnam. His four brothers and a son all served in the United States military, as does his son-in-law today who is actively serving in the United States Navy. After retiring from the Army, he continued that service to his country for almost three decades with the Internal Revenue Service, where his wife Valerie has also worked.

The gentleman from Georgia is a particularly appropriate person to present this resolution today because after living through a life of segregation in South Carolina, Vern was present that day, John Lewis, when you along with Dr. Martin Luther King spoke down The Mall here in the famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech and the celebration at the Lincoln Memorial. His dream, he saw in his service to his country through the Army and through the Internal Revenue Service, was a dream rooted in freedom and justice; and 45 years after that speech, Vernon was able to witness America's progress when he himself served as a delegate for President Obama.

Dr. Martin Luther King once said: ``The quality, not the longevity, of one's life is what is important.'' Because Vern Hunter cared enough to make a difference, Austin and this Nation that he loved so much and served his whole life was made better. In a remarkable statement at a moment of such great pain, the Hunter family expressed its personal forgiveness of the suicide attacker and expressed sympathy for the attacker's family. These moving words of peace reflect the power of their own faith and the strength of spirit, both of the Hunter family and the Greater Mount Zion Baptist Church family, led by Reverend Gaylon Clark. Vern, his life and his family are a testament about what is best in our country. In him, we have lost a true American hero.

Today I respectfully ask that my colleagues join in adopting this resolution to honor him, the other victims, the employees, and the rescuers and to renounce violence against those who are serving our country.

I thank both gentlemen. I want to applaud the remarks of my colleague Mr. McCaul, both the remarks that he made here today and the remarks that he made on the afternoon of this tragedy, under what I know was a very stressful situation.

I believe that we share a common purpose here. No one was looking to see which party, a member of the IRS was that day, or what part of the City of Austin. It affected our entire community. I had not used the term earlier, but I must say I also agree with his conclusion that like the much larger-scale tragedy in Oklahoma City, this was an act of domestic terrorism. But let's not quibble over the terms; it was the harm that was done and the promotion of that harm and violence. There is nothing noble about terror. Any expression to the contrary deserves our condemnation.

As I read the statement that the pilot put up on his website, which was a rather confusing diatribe, I noticed particularly his quotation, ``violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer,'' and in response almost immediately, some folks set up a Facebook page and called themselves ``fans'' of this suicide attacker. Sporting a ``Don't Tread on Me'' flag, the so-called ``fan page'' to the murderer misappropriated Thomas Jefferson's famous words that ``the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.'' This resolution soundly rejects, in a bipartisan manner, such appalling tributes.

The patriots were working in the building that day, not working to kill public servants. The heroes were people like Vern Hunter who were doing their job on behalf of their country, not trying to destroy their fellow human beings.

I believe we must turn down the volume on hate if we are to avoid reoccurrence of such baseless terror attacks. In our country, there is room for wide and vigorous political discourse and disagreement--our democracy thrives on it--but there is no room for violence or the dangerous incitement to violence. We get change through the ballot box, not by bullets, not by suicide airplane attacks. Let us speak today with one strong, unequivocal voice renouncing this attack. We reject the path of hate, and we reject the call to violence.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, for 65 years health insurance companies have enjoyed a special interest exemption from laws prohibiting price fixing, bid rigging, and carving up the insurance market. Consumers' health insurance premiums go up, while coverage gets worse and worse. In the past six years, health insurance premiums have increased at a rate four times the increase in the average American worker's wages.

Twenty-seven years ago, as a young Texas State Senator, I authored the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act. But one industry, one industry among all others, was exempted because of this Federal law. So no action could be taken against the anticompetitive practices of one industry,

the insurance industry. And we see the results. In the last decade, health insurance premiums in Texas have gone up over 100 percent.

Protecting consumers and fostering competition are American values. Families and small businesses will benefit when the health care industry has to compete like other industries. With this reform and a newly reinvigorated Department of Justice, which forgot about antitrust enforcement under the Bush administration, together we can now have the oversight that was overlooked for eight years under that administration.

Hopefully, President Obama will correct a major omission in the health care legislation that he proposed by including this vital reform--repeal of the antitrust loophole for the health insurance industry. It is time for competition. It is time for open markets. And it is time to block the closed-door collusion that Americans are paying for in higher and higher premiums by letting competition work.