John Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, 9 years ago, this House passed this ban on Internet taxes. It has been in place for 9 years. During that time, we have seen tremendous growth, economic growth, come from the Internet and also tremendous opportunity for people to access information that before they could not access over that 9 years. During this time, e-mail, which once cost everyone something, now costs most people nothing. Instant messages now exist which are generally entirely free. There are all kinds of Web sites that allow people to access information for free that prior to the evolution and growth of the Internet they would have to pay to get that information. Now you have a number of municipalities and organizations looking at free WiFi, meaning that is even free access to the Internet. In the face of all of this, all of these market pressures lowering the cost of people accessing this information and adding to the economic growth that comes from the Internet, the last thing that government should be doing is imposing their cost on it, their cost meaning ``taxes.'' Mr. Speaker, I stand today to support this legislation, although I firmly believe, as the previous speakers have said, that this ban should have been made permanent. I don't think we are going to learn anything in the next 4 years that we didn't learn in the last 9 years, that the Internet is a tremendous engine for economic growth and an opportunity for information transfer available to people of all demographics all across the country. We do not want to retard its growth. We do not want to slow its growth by imposing taxes from government. We haven't done it in the next 9 years, and this bill make sure we don't do it for the next 4 years. I hope we don't ever do it.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentlelady from Florida for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Washington for his support and supportive words about this bill. And most of all, I thank my coauthor in this effort, Mr. Berman, my friend and fellow Californian, for his involvement and effort in this bill and this important action. And I think it is an important action, Mr. Speaker, because, as the three previous speakers have mentioned, it's not like the world is devoid of problems in human rights. It's not like there are not repressive regimes in various places around the world. There is a place for the United Nations to be talking about this, to be dealing with this, to be trying to help this situation; but, unfortunately, this Human Rights Council, which was supposed to be that, is clearly not that. Now, when this Human Rights Council was formed in 2006 to replace, as Mr. Berman pointed out, the discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the then-U.N. General Assembly president, Jan Eliasson, said that the council would be ``principled, effective and fair.'' And during its establishment, the U.N. General Assembly went on to say that this council would be responsible for ``promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind, and in a fair and equal manner.'' Mr. Speaker, I applaud those words. I applaud the basis upon which this council was established. But the facts show that in the year of its existence, it has not followed this directive. As was pointed out, the first three special sessions out of the first nine sessions they had condemned Israel for their possible human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territories and Lebanon. The fourth one was a noncondemnatory expression of concern regarding the situation in Darfur. Now, what about Belarus? What about China? What about Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, anywhere else in the world? They have not even had a session to discuss them, not to mention have a mild condemnation or a full condemnation, but multiple condemnations of Israel, and they have now placed Israel on the permanent schedule. Now, that is not a good thing. That means that every meeting they have, they will be discussing what human rights violations are in Israel. But as Mr. Berman pointed out, is Uzbekistan even on the calendar? No. Any of these other places even on the calendar? No. Let's look at some of the members of the Human Rights Council now. Some of the members include Algeria, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Now, I'm very disappointed that, as it has happened, a group that started out with such a noble cause and noble effort seems to have a complete lack of reasoned objectivity with their obvious inherent discrimination against Israel. And it appears they have become a refuge for human rights abusers to hang out and thereby avoid scrutiny or condemnation of their own actions. Just this morning, the President was in New York speaking before the United Nations; and amongst the comments that he made was the following: ``Yet the American people are disappointed by the failures of the Human Rights Council. This body has been silent on repression by regimes from Havana to Caracas to Pyongyang and Tehran, while focusing its criticism successively on Israel. To be credible on human rights in the world, the United Nations must reform its own Human Rights Council.'' Mr. Speaker, that's what this bill hopes to begin the process of doing. This Human Rights Council is a sham. It is not accomplishing what it was set out to do, yet the objective for which it was put in place still exists, the need still exists. The United Nations needs a real Human Rights Council, not a cover for those who would abuse human rights.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mano James Torta. Mr. Torta was tragically killed on March 30, 2007, when he was hit by a drunk-driver while crossing the street in front of his apartment building. Mr. Torta was on the way to meet his wife, Lorraine, for dinner. Madam Speaker, my thoughts and prayers go out to Lorraine, and the rest of the Torta family, including his son James and his two daughters, Kimberly and Christine, Christine's husband Peter and their daughter, his granddaughter, Caitlin. At the same time, I wanted to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues some comments written about Mr. Torta by his son. For those of you who were not fortunate enough to know my father well, it may be difficult for you to understand what kind of man my father was--as my father was not like other men. My father, first and foremost, was a man filled with love. He loved my mother--completely, honestly, selflessly--for more than thirty-five years. I cannot even begin to describe the depth and beauty of their love. Many men, on their passing, are described as ``devoted husbands''--but I cannot imagine a man more devoted to his wife. His love for her--and hers for him--was a love that transcends words. He lived for her--truly, truly--lived for her. How many husbands can make such a claim? He lived to make her smile, to make her laugh, to make her happy. She was more than his wife--she was his heart, his love, his life. She was everything to him. There are so many stories that I could tell you--beautiful stories about my mom and dad that would make you believe, really believe--in ``true love.'' For their's was the truest of love, and they spent their lives devoting themselves to each other. But instead of telling you a story, I want to give you an image--a simple image, for their's was a simple love. I want you to imagine my father and mother sitting at their kitchen table, taking tea together, talking and laughing about what had happened on that particular day. Then my father would smile wide and say that he had a surprise for her--for he was always surprising her with some sort of treat--and he would go to some nook in a cabinet and bring out some mint milano cookies that he had bought earlier in the day and hidden away so that, at this moment, he could make her even happier than she was. That was their love, the kind of love that showed itself in every minute of every day, the simple and pure kind of love--sitting together, laughing, sharing, wanting only each other's company. After thirty-five years their love was something more than what they shared--it was who they were. How many people are blessed with such wondrous simplicity? And how can I even begin to tell you how much my father loved his family? My father would often tell me how proud he was to have me as a son--but I was even more proud to have him as my father. I like to tell stories about him to my students--how he worked for thirty-five years at a post office to support his family, working long hours and sometimes more than one job to send all three of his children to college and to make sure than they all had the opportunities in life that he never had. I would tell them about how he would try to give me the last dollar he had in his wallet, how he would always make time for us to talk or play catch in the backyard even when he was exhausted from a long night at work, how he gave everything he had to his family. But again, words cannot tell the story of my father's love for his family. If only you could have seen how gently he picked us up when we fell down and scraped our knees, how securely he held us in his arms when we cried, how he held our hands when we were sick. It is often said that you never know what you have until it is gone, but my sisters and I knew how lucky we were. It was impossible not to know what a good father my dad was. We depended so much on him and he never, never, let us down. He always wanted to give us more, help us more, and spend more time with us. We would give anything to spend more time with him now. My sisters would tell you that no matter how much we loved him, he loved us more. Listening to my sisters remember him, hearing my mom mourn--I've come to understand that he taught us about many things, but the most important thing he taught us about was love. He showed us that love was not to be spent on material things, but to be given to people who are close to you. He taught us that love, above all other things, was of paramount importance in this life--that without love we have nothing. And he didn't just say these things; he lived his life inspired by these ideals. My father wrote me a letter seven years ago, a letter I have carried around in my wallet ever since. In the letter he wrote--with touching simplicity and sincerity--to tell me how much he loved me, how proud he was of me, and how he hoped that I would follow my heart and make all my dreams come true. I didn't need to carry it around--I mean, I never needed any reminder of how he felt--but I whenever I touched the folded up paper, no matter where I was or what I was doing, I felt as though everything was going to be okay. And that's how he made all of us feel--warm and loved and safe. I was not surprised when, on Friday night, my mom showed me a note he had written her--also folded up and tucked into her purse. He had that effect on all of us. My father had so many things to look forward to--he was going to retire this summer after 35 years of service and travel around the world with my mom. He was going to watch his lovely granddaughter Caitlin grow up. He was finally going to get a chance-after all those years of struggling and working--to take a deep breath and relax. No man has ever deserved to enjoy the fruits of life after retirement more than he. Yet there he was, crossing the street, on the cusp of a whole new chapter in life--and he was taken from this world . . . not by illness or old age, but by cruel, cruel chance. His death was a senseless tragedy--proof of what an unfair and senseless world this can be--but today I beg you instead to remember how he lived his life . . . for his kindness, grace, and generosity should be an example to us all. He would not want us to harden our hearts and spend this time burning with anger at the enormity of this tragedy. Instead remember what a wonderful, beautiful man he was, the kind of man who gave so much and took so little. Remember how a man who had seen so much and worked so hard somehow managed to keep his heart so pure, and his soul so gentle. For who here ever knew a man as gentle as he? Yesterday I said that my dad was lucky to have met his granddaughter Caitlin--for she was born only 14 months ago-- and my sister Kim corrected me and said that Caitlin was lucky to have met him. And that is the truth of it--we all were lucky to have known him. He was the best of men . . . the very best. He will be missed more than anyone can possibly imagine. Again, my thoughts and prayers go out to the Torta family.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, this is an earmark ostensibly for a ``Paint Shield for Protecting People Against Microbial Threats'' for $2 million. Apparently this $2 million will be going to the Sherwin-Williams paint company in Cleveland, Ohio. I actually have a couple of questions either for the sponsor of the earmark or for the chairman of the committee. I guess my first question would be, and I am happy to yield to whomever would like to answer it, is this something that military leadership has asked for?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. If I may inquire further, Mr. Chairman, you said you are sure the military, so you are not aware if, in fact, the military has asked for this kind of technology? I guess the answer to that is no. The next question I would have is what investigations have been done to determine that this technology could actually even be effective.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Then I am sure if the gentleman goes over every single one, he can answer the questions, what investigations, what research has been done to determine that this technology is effective and is worth $2 million of taxpayers' funds? If you investigate every earmark, I have a couple of other questions. Sherwin-Williams is not the only maker of paint in the country. How did we know, and what was determined that Sherwin-Williams was the best or the right supplier, if you assume that the military asked for it and the technology was effective?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank you. Again, my question was, I am sure, they are obviously a well-known qualified paint company. By the way, I don't represent any paint companies, to my knowledge, none whatsoever. So my question is, how do we know they are the best for this particular product? I guess I would follow it up with how do we know, if we even knew that, how do we know that $2 million is the right amount. Was there some investigation, some research done to determine that $2 million was the right amount?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Let me ask, though, but then why is it, if they are competitively bid, that this one is going to Sherwin- Williams paint company?