John Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes just for a brief response. In listening to the arguments on the other side, it sounds as though they are debating for changing certain things in credit cards as though we are debating against that. We are not. What we are here saying is simply that this kind of thing is better done by regulation than it is by proscriptive statute, which is what this bill would do. And actually, it would be more effective in protecting the consumers if there is a regular regulatory process and review and so forth, not just this year but ongoing forward, than if Congress keeps stepping in and interfering with and, in fact, probably slowing down that particular regulatory review and process. That is what we are talking about here, in addition to the fact that the other very important thing to keep in mind is that we have the availability of this credit going forward given the current crisis in which we find ourselves. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Yes. What I said was that they may. And it would not be a retaliatory basis. It would be because the credit markets are currently in great turmoil. And because they are in great turmoil already, credit is restricting and the rates are going up. That is happening not just with credit card debt, but with car loan debt.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. No. What I am saying is that we should, as I've said----

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself a minute just to respond to that, that what we have here is that the unfair and deceptive practices should stop. The Federal Reserve is probably going to do that. But by stepping in now, they will be considering all of the responses they got, and by the way, the lady from New York mentioned about the credit card companies are against the Federal Reserve proposal. I'm sure they are. But the Federal Reserve will make the decision they believe is right based on the statute which says they are supposed to crack down on those unfair and deceptive practices. And they will do that. But what we don't want to do is send more messages to the marketplace now that we are stepping in to do things that may include some things that aren't unfair and deceptive, or that may mess with the financial markets because they are very, very fragile at the moment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that Fed Governor Randy Kroszner, in testimony, said that he did believe that the regulations promulgated by the Fed would, in fact, raise interest rates for some and restrict credit for some, talking about his own proposed regulations. So there is at least some authoritative belief that that will happen. I would now like to yield 4 minutes to a member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I would like to yield the lady 1 more minute.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), also a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I yield the gentleman 1 more minute.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I have one more speaker, a repeat speaker, and then I am prepared to close after that. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Speaker, for the reasons we have articulated, this is not the way to do this, nor is it the time to do it. This bill is very well intentioned, and I applaud my colleague from New York for her commitment to this issue and, frankly, for her tenacity with this issue. But this bill, make no mistake, will not help consumers. It will hurt consumers. Unfair and deceptive practices will be dealt with on a regulatory basis as they should be by the Federal Reserve. And then hopefully this Congress will act this week in a bipartisan and reasoned manner to try and deal with the financial crisis so that credit availability for people is continued and assured. And then we can deal with this continuing issue, and it will be a continuing issue without the current environment of the potential shutdown of credit to availability. It is not the way. It is not the time to do this. I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from Alaska for yielding. There are no Civil War battlefield sites in California. There was one place where shots were fired near the Arizona border, but I do admit to having more than a passing interest in the study of and learning about the Civil War. I stand today strongly in favor of this bill. I can't tell you how many times I invoke the quotes or the deeds or the actions of politicians and generals and citizens from the Civil War and the Civil War era in giving us guidance and perspective on how we deal with some of our problems today. As we today and this week are facing a financial crisis which is not something that could ever even have been conceived in the Civil War but they certainly dealt with crises of their own. How they dealt with them and how they worked with them and the courage with which they faced them are instructive to all of us today. These battlefield sites bring that history alive. They remind us of the sacrifices that those who came before us made to give us what we have today, and they instruct us and teach us of the bravery and the courage and the principles upon which they stood and how we can remember and call upon the same bravery and courage and principles today. As was said, this bill not only protects private property rights but also leverages a tremendous amount of private funds, largely private funds, that are collected from around the country to preserve these battlefield sites. Madam Speaker, again I stand in strong support of this bill, both for what the Civil War sites have done for us in the past and what they can continue to do to teach us in the future.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I've heard the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee talk about that the appropriations process is about allocation of resources. Because resources, even in the United States Federal Government, are not unlimited, and so we always have to make choices of where money goes and where money doesn't go. And that's what this discussion and that's what this particular amendment are about. There are, in the United States, excluding the territories, excluding overseas, there are 4,402 military sites, 4,402. Here we have, in this bill, Member earmarks that picked 103 of these sites--excluding the other, roughly, 4,300--and send those $622 million of taxpayers' money. And the question before us really is, why those 103? Why not the other 4,300? Now, as much as the speakers before me have criticized the executive branch or the Department of Defense or, in fact, military leaders, Department of Defense and the Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, Department of the Air Force have a responsibility for their share of all of these. Department of the Army has 1,768 sites. So they have responsibility for all of those. When left the construction budget for them, they will, we presume, try and put the money where they believe it is most needed, where they believe it is the greatest warranted use. You might disagree with that, but they have a perspective over the entire country. We are each elected to represent our individual districts. And although all of us are here and care about the entire country, clearly, our first responsibility is often to our individual districts. So I would argue that those who have a perspective of the entire country are perhaps in a better position to look at the proper allocation than this. And if these 103 were fairly allocated, then I would ask, why does Mr. Flake's chart come out the way it is? Is that simply coincidence that the greatest need of these facilities happens to be in districts that are represented by appropriators? Is that purely coincidence? I think not. And when we examine how and where all this money will go, the other thing is, what does the Defense Department think? Well, we didn't call all 103, but we did call a few. We called up the Defense Department and asked them about a few of these; did you request this? Did you think this was a need? Did you think this was important for the military to spend this on this particular site, this particular facility, this particular area? And the answer we got was no in all the cases in which we asked. So I think, Mr. Chairman, what we have before us is a process that does not work, that is not fair, that is not the best allocation of what are always limited resources. And that is why, Mr. Chairman--I am a cosponsor with Mr. Flake of this amendment--and that is why I hope our colleagues will look at this and remember, as he said, this is likely the only chance anyone in this Chamber is going to have to express their opinion on earmarks. And if you think the earmark process is broken, if you think there are problems with it, if you think there are abuses, if you think we need to reform it, this is your opportunity; this is the opportunity for Members to send a message and vote for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to this bill. Just last week, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission charged Optiver Holding BV with manipulation of the oil futures markets. They charged them for using a system called ``banging the close'' and charged that they made $1 million dollars with illegal manipulation of the oil futures markets. You see, Mr. Speaker, it is already illegal to manipulate the oil futures markets, and the CFTC is already enforcing that. What this bill unfortunately does is move beyond manipulation into what is legitimate trading. When Southwest Airlines, which is a well-known organization that recently bought contracts forward and hedged oil prices going forward, when they buy that, someone else owns the other end of that contract. And when oil prices start to go up, the person who owns the other end of that contract tries to reduce their losses so they go into the market to do that. That is not manipulation. That is legitimate trading. If you stop that, which this bill will, then a Southwest Airlines may not be able to get this kind of hedge in the future, or if they do, it will be much more expensive. There's a difference between manipulation and legitimate trading. This bill does not recognize that. So I oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to oppose it. Manipulation is already illegal. The bill will impact legitimate trading. It will move a lot of these trades from the United States to London or Dubai. It will hurt American companies. And in the end, Mr. Speaker, as the CFTC admitted last week, the major cause of oil prices is not speculation or even manipulation but is, in fact, supply-and-demand factors. If we want to bring oil prices down, we will do it when we increase supply dramatically in this country and lower demand.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Yes.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Yes, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are a whole bunch of things in this bill I think are awful. I don't like funds, government funds to buy foreclosed properties. I don't like having a fee that might increase the interest rates that people pay for loans. I don't like creating a slush fund that will probably largely go to some political organizations. And I do not like helping irresponsible lenders that don't deserve to get any help. However, I am going to support this bill today. I am going to support it because we are in a position where we cannot afford to not have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the marketplace. If you think the economy is tough now, watch what would happen if we took 50 percent of our lending capacity out of this marketplace today. We can argue about whether Fannie and Freddie should be as they are constructed today, and I don't think they should be. We should have an argument about how they should be constructed in the future. We should have a debate about that. But they are as they are now, and the guarantee from the Federal Government is implicit, and this bill will make it explicit, and I think that is, very unfortunately, something we are going to have to do. The bill also does provide some lending support out there. There are people out there who did get in a problem that was not of their own making and who do deserve some help and some support. Unfortunately, we will be supporting a lot of people who don't deserve, but at least it will get to people who do deserve support as well. So, Mr. Speaker, I stand before you reluctantly supporting the bill, but supporting it because we cannot afford at this time to see the housing market slip further and further into a problem. Although this has a number of things which won't help at all, it does have some things which I think are necessary.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank my colleague and friend from Washington for yielding. You know, Mr. Speaker, the original intent of why we allow gambling on Indian reservations was so that we could give some economic opportunity to full-blooded Indians on their native tribal lands in very remote areas in which hardly any economic opportunity existed. So what do we have now? Now we see various Indian tribes that have already achieved tremendous economic benefits that are now wanting to put casinos in urban and suburban areas that are long distances from their native tribal lands and where there is a lot of economic opportunity, and to fill those, not even helping any of the people in their tribe who are back on the reservation. With a bill like this, we have strayed a long ways from the original intent of Indian gambling. Now, this bill is about two tribes specifically in Michigan. I am from California, but yet this trend, this movement, is not limited to just Michigan. Throughout the country, you see groups either trying to create new tribes in urban areas in order to locate gambling operations or, like these in Michigan, to extend from a remote area and set up new gambling in a new metropolitan area. All of this has nothing to do with the original intent of the Indian gambling laws. If communities like Detroit, or anywhere, wish to have gambling, they don't need this House; they don't need this Congress; they don't need the Indian gambling laws to do it. Through their State and local communities, they can allow people to gamble. They can set up various gambling operations, if they want, within their community and within their State. That's up to them. But let us not all here in this House, in this Congress, set a trend. Let's not set a precedent. Let's not use Indian tribes in order to dot the urban and suburban areas of this country with monopoly gambling operations.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, shh, there's a secret. I have a secret. It's a secret that the leadership in this House doesn't want the people to know; but I'm going to tell you anyway. This Nation, this Federal Government, is in a historic fiscal crisis right now. It was announced earlier this week that the deficit for this fiscal year which we are in is projected now to reach $470 billion. Now, Mr. Speaker, for most people when you talk like this, these numbers are so huge they sound arcane. What does that mean. Well, it is half a trillion dollars which I think most people know is a lot of money. Let me put it in perspective. If we reach that level by the end of September, this will be by far the largest single year deficit in American history. Let me repeat that. We are currently in a year in which we will likely reach the largest deficit in 1 year in U.S. history. But it doesn't seem to stop there because also this week the Appropriations Committee released their spending request for the next fiscal year, for fiscal year 2009. And they requested to spend 7.7 percent more than this year; 7.7 percent more. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the appropriations request is made up of 12 separate bills, 12 separate areas of the government. They propose an increase in spending in all 12. They are not proposing to keep the same or reduce spending anywhere in spite of the largest deficit in American history. And because of the economic doldrums that we are currently in, revenue right now is basically flat. It is not rising very much. And entitlement spending, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, is going up by nearly 6 percent a year all by itself automatically if we don't do anything over the next 5 years. So you don't have to be a rocket scientist to say okay, if revenues are staying the same and we are increasing some spending by 7.7 percent and the rest by nearly 6, the deficit is going to go up. So with the way things are projected, we could have a deficit of $600 billion, maybe $700 billion next year. And what are we doing about it in this House, well, we are just trying to make it worse. Yesterday in a very broad, bipartisan vote, there was a vote to spend an additional $261 billion over the next 2 years, much of which is not included in the numbers that I just gave you. So $261 billion more. Deeper debt, bigger deficits. Now some of the things that were included in that bill yesterday are priorities. One of them was continuing to support the troops in Iraq. I personally support that. But we have to make choices. There have to be priorities. We can't spend on everything. We should support the troops in completing their mission in Iraq, but we should cut something else so we are not making the taxpayer be the loser on all of this. It seems like every week in this place, in fact I believe every week here we have either added a new program, new spending or a new entitlement. And hardly ever do we reduce the spending on something else to pay for it. Now we are spending well over $3 trillion a year in the Federal Government. You would think that some of that $3 trillion is not something that we absolutely need. And we need to be reducing those things and setting priorities. If this is more important than this, then we spend on this and don't spend on this because we can't spend on it all. But unfortunately what is happening around here is all right, I have my spending program, and another Member has their spending program, and so what's the compromise? I know, let's spend both. I get to spend what I want to spend and you get to spend what you want to spend, and those are the compromises we have been reaching in this place recently. Great deal. Politicians win; special interests win; taxpayer loses. Mr. Speaker, this has got to stop. We have to stop the spending, and when we set priorities on things that we want to spend money on, we have to cut something else. You know, the last thing I have here is: Are we going to have the highest tax rate in the world? Senator Obama recently proposed to lift the cap now on Social Security and Medicare taxes for incomes above $250,000 and repeal all of the tax cuts that were put in place in this century in 2001 and 2003. If both of those things Senator Obama has approved become law, the highest tax rate in the United States will be 54.9 percent. It will be the fourth highest tax rate in the industrialized world. We will be exceeded only by France, Sweden and Denmark. Oh, and by the way, all three of those countries are currently moving to reduce their tax rates because they see what that kind of tax burden will do, is doing to their economy and to brain drain from their countries. Mr. Speaker, I hope that people will not keep this a secret but will tell everybody.