John Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Well, I think Sherwin-Williams thinks there is, by the way. Then the final question I would have for the gentleman would be if this $2 million goes to Sherwin-Williams to develop this product, and they, in fact, develop it, will the taxpayers own that product? Is that then a product, a license, something that the taxpayers own?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. So the taxpayers will not have to pay for the use of that product in the future.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. What evidence of that is there, if I may ask? What do the taxpayers get for this $2 million as evidence of their ownership of this product or technology?

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, this particular earmark is for a swimmer detection sonar network for $1.5 million. The company developing this technology is in New Hampshire. Interestingly, there are about three other companies that do a similar technology or do something intended to do the same thing, which is detect people swimming in the water up towards a ship, at least three others that we have determined, and one of which is currently being used by the Coast Guard that doesn't use sonar but already is in place and in effect. Mr. Chairman, I could ask the same series of questions of the chairman of the committee on this earmark that I did on the last. I won't do that, because the point of this, frankly, is not that this particular earmark is particularly egregious, nor, frankly, that the previous one that I brought up was particularly egregious. I believe that there are literally hundreds of earmarks like these offered by many members in this Defense Appropriations Committee. The reason I am bringing these forward is because of a personal experience I had when a defense contractor came to me in my first few months in office and came forward with an earmark, and I asked these questions. I said, does the military want this, or, have you developed something you want me to give you $2 million of the taxpayers' money for something the military doesn't want? Then I said how do I know that your technology will work? How do I know that this $2 million is effective in curing or dealing with the situation that you claim you want it to be? Then I said how do I know you are the right supplier? It's great that you are in my district, that's wonderful, I think that's fine you have those jobs, but how do I know the best supplier is not in Pennsylvania? How do I know the best supplier is not in Connecticut? How do I know you're the right company to do this? Then I said, even if I did, how do I know that $3 million is the right price? How do I know that it doesn't cost you $50,000 to develop this thing, and you are making $2,950,000 off the American taxpayer. Then if you do, is the American taxpayer going to get this product for free, because if we pay for it, we should. That is the point of what I am doing here. When you look at all of these earmarks, those five questions, in my view, should be asked on every single earmark that goes to a private company that is in this defense bill or, frankly, any other bill. If the answer to all five of these questions is not yes, I don't care if it's a company in my district, or the chairman's district or anybody's district, we should not be using taxpayers' funds for it. I will tell you that I told that defense supplier and every defense supplier in my district that I met with, no. Because they could not give me a yes answer to all five of those questions. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. May I inquire how much time I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I understand, but there are a number, there are at least three, and I am not on the committee, and I didn't do exhaustive research, there are three others of these currently in use and currently in development. The Coast Guard, at least, apparently, believes that their system is better than this system. So my question is, for this sort of earmark, are we going to fund, if there were a company, and all 435 of our districts that was interested in developing this thing, should we give them all $1.5 million and see who wins? I just don't think that this earmark, or, as I have said, hundreds of others out of the 1,300 that are in this bill, really meet the scrutiny when we are using taxpayer money and giving it to private companies to develop this stuff without the proper scrutiny in terms of this technology, did the military ask for it, is it effective, is it the right supplier, is it the right price and what do the taxpayers own when they are done paying for it. I ask for an ``aye'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Delaware for yielding. I rise today to congratulate the University of California, Irvine, men's volleyball team for winning the 2007 NCAA Division I Men's Volleyball National Championship, as was mentioned, on May 5, 2007. I am very proud of the Anteater volleyball team, who won the school's first men's volleyball national championship after finishing this 2006/ 2007 season with the most wins in the Nation. I would like to especially honor the leadership of Coach John Speraw and the talent and effort of each athlete who performed all season long to win this championship. I am proud today to celebrate the accomplishments of this team that represents a tradition of excellence at the University of California, Irvine. But, you know, it is not a very long tradition of excellence, because the University of California, Irvine, was only established in 1965. But already in just over 40 years, the school has grown accustomed to receiving accolades in both academics and in sports as well. So I would like to also extend my congratulations to Chancellor Michael Drake, who is continuing this, albeit short, but continuing tradition at UCI of excellence in both sports and in academic fields, particularly in the fields of science and technology. So I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing this achievement and supporting H. Res. 511.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Speaker, on July 23, 2007, I missed rollcall votes 687-690. Regrettably, my flight from California to Washington, DC was cancelled and I had to take a flight that got me here after votes. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes'' on votes 687, 688, and 689, and ``no'' on vote 690. Rollcall vote 687: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended H.R. 404, Federal Customer Service Enhancement Act; Rollcall vote 688: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, H. Res. 553, Mourning the passing of Lady Bird Johnson; Rollcall vote 689: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, H. Res. 519, Honoring the life and accomplishments of Tom Lea on the 100th anniversary of his birth; Rollcall vote 690: On Ordering the Previous Question, H. Res. 558, Providing for consideration of H.R. 3074, the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies, FY 2008.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, in listening to all this discussion, I have to think that the taxpayers of America have to wonder what's going on here, that in this bill there has been a proposal to say, well, we'll let these government agencies spend 100 cents on the dollar, 100 percent of everything they had last year. Oh, it's terrible, we can't do that. Then there was one at 102 percent of what they had last year. No, we can't do that. Then there is one at 102.5 percent of what they had last year. No, it's terrible. They can't do that. So here's one more try. What this does is reduce the increase in spending by .05 percent. That is 5/100 of a percent. That leaves them with a whole lot of money and a lot more of an increase, almost the same increase they had last year. Now, I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the people of America can't understand why people on other side of the aisle, the majority Democrats, would have a problem with this. I can't understand it either. I think perhaps they don't understand what this is. Now, this amendment would save the taxpayers $27 million. Now, that's real money, $27 million, by which the deficit will not increase. We have a deficit, and we are robbing the Social Security surplus. It's $27 million we would save the taxpayer. I have five explanations, five examples I would like to give here to perhaps help my friends on the other side of the aisle understand just what this proposal is to see if there is anything, anything at all that they believe is possible to reduce spending. Is there any waste in government? Is there anything government can do for only 103 percent of what they had last year? First of all, this does take the spending increase from 3.5 percent to basically 3.45 percent, basically the change in the interest. That's number one. Number two, it still increases spending in these Departments by $1.574 billion over last year, $1.574 billion more. Let me give a third example. This is a $100 bill. This represents how much the government is spending on these programs now. Here's three more dollars and five cents. This bill represents this bill as it's currently written, the $100 they had last year, three more and five more cents. Here, Mr. Chairman, is how much the government would have to get if this amendment were to pass, $100, $3, but not the 5 cents; 5 cents on $103. Somehow this is going to greatly damage programs and what we are doing. Let me give a fourth example. The gentleman from Ohio mentioned in the last debate a particular function that he said would have 245 agents under their bill as proposed. If this amendment were to pass, how many agents would there be? Well, there would still be 245 agents, but you would have to tell one of those agents that they would only work a 7-hour day instead of an 8-hour day. That is the significance of this bill. Now my final example, if we look at the entirety of this blue donkey as a complete government program as proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, we have seen a proposal already to have 99 percent. Now, when you look at them, you may say, well, gosh, they look almost the same. That's because they are almost the same. I don't know if you or others can see the change we made, but what we did was we tried to reduce about 1 percent of the total donkey surface area up in the air, but, no, that's been rejected. So we said let's make it 99.5 percent of what you want to spend, still an increase over the last year, but of what you want to spend a little more here. There is still not much difference, I think, to most people, but, no, can't do that. So on the last bill I proposed a quarter of a percent cut. Quarter percent. Could you get by on quarter of a percent less of an increase than what's been proposed? That was ``no'' also. Now we are trying again, 5/100 of 1 percent. Let me try to do that graphically here. I do have a blue marking pen, 99.95 percent of the increase that you want, you can hardly tell the difference. But if we do this on every bill, every bit of spending over the government, we will eventually start to save money. This is the way it works. The average American taxpayer understands that, that if I put away $10 a week, $10 a month, eventually I will have quite a bit of money. But I have to have the discipline to do it. That's what we are trying to say here. We have a deficit. We are robbing the Social Security surplus. One thing that is not in dispute is that we are heading for a fiscal train wreck. Within 30 years, Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid alone will eat up 100 percent of the taxes currently received. What are we going to do? Are we going to double or triple taxes, or are we going to reform those systems, reform government and start now? Yes, it's 30 years from now, but if we don't start on it now, the problem will be closer and bigger and closer and bigger. We see that if the other side is not willing to do this, what will they do, other than increase taxes? Now, we see tax increases going on now. We have seen a budget that includes either the largest or the second largest tax increase in American history, and right now we are seeing tax increases proposed by the Democrat majority on minority groups, on smokers, they are a small minority group. Then just this evening we will probably have one on foreign companies who are setting up businesses and creating jobs in America. Now the other side I know says, oh, no, that's not a tax increase. I would like to read you a letter here. This is a letter from Bart Gordon, who is a Congressman from the Sixth District of Tennessee, a Democrat, to the chairman of Ways and Means, and he says: ``Concerns have been raised by Bridgestone America, a company with facilities in my district, about the impact the proposed Farm Bill offset would have on them. Bridgestone is concerned that the 30 percent withholding tax imposed by the proposal would have a broad and negative impact on its legitimate international business operations. ``I understand the importance of ensuring that multi-national companies are not able to abuse tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes, but we must also be careful not to punish legitimate business practices and discourage foreign companies from insourcing operations in the United States. Concerns have also been raised about the effect this withholding tax will have on our international treaties.'' That, Mr. Chairman, is a Democrat, not a Republican, talking about this tax, this withholding tax. It's a potential impact on jobs in America and the potential impact on trade agreements we have with other countries that will affect the ability of American companies to do business overseas. Now, it's quite a contrast, because that's what they are proposing. The majority keeps proposing tax increase after tax increase after tax increase, and they will start on minority groups, and they will move to everyone, because they can't get it done without everyone. All we're asking here, all we're asking here is 5/100 of a percent, one nickel on $100, a slightly less increase so we can begin the process of spending less, not taxing more. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, will my colleague yield?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Just to answer your question.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I just wanted to clarify that my colleagues' arguments from California were very fine arguments, except they don't apply to this amendment. This amendment does make a 0.0005 or 5 basis points, one- five-hundredths of a percent reduction in the growth of each program equally across the board. So it is 5 cents on $100 of everything. I appreciate the argument. It is clear that our friends on the other side of the aisle believe that government cannot survive on this, but they believe that all kinds of people, companies, entities can survive on a whole lot less than that with the taxes they want to increase. It is a very clear distinction, Mr. Chairman, between 5 cents on $100 across the board on every program, which I think would be fine, versus all of the various tax proposals, increase proposals, that you have both on various minorities, like smokers and foreign companies, and in your budget on basically every taxpayer in America.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate a $2 million earmark for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York, New York. Currently, Mr. Chairman, the City College of New York does not have a Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service. The Web site shows there are 16 centers of study, none of which bear Mr. Rangel's name. So ostensibly this $2 million is going to be creating the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service. Currently, according to the Web site, it appears that most everything dealing with public service careers at the City College of New York currently goes through the Colin Powell Center for Policy Studies, which was founded by a charitable grant in 1997. Now, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rangel provided to me yesterday a brochure here on the Center for Public Service in New York. And this has a lot of stuff in it, admittedly, it mentions many things. But there are a few things in it I thought were troubling, because amongst the things that it says this center will have are, quote, ``a well-furnished office for Congressman Rangel.'' Second, ``the Rangel Library to house its Rangel archives.'' And it goes on to say, quote, ``The Rangel archivist librarian will organize, index and preserve for posterity all documents, photographs and memorabilia relating to Congressman Rangel's career.'' House rules, and House rule XXI, clause 6 says, and I quote, ``It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report that provides for the designation or redesignation of a public work in honor of an individual then serving as a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner or Senator.'' In other words, the rule says that we don't name public works after ourselves while we are in Congress. Now, it's my understanding from the Parliamentarian that this amendment does not violate the letter of that rule. I would argue, and argue to my friends in the majority, that it would violate the spirit. I really do not think this is a road we want to go down, where we, as Members, have the ability to create and name things after ourselves using public funds while we are in office. If you think about that, there are five colleges or universities in my district. I'm sure if I went to one of them, any of them, with $2 million and said, Let's have the John Campbell School of Fiscal Responsibility, I'm sure they would at least listen to that. But I don't think that would be right and I don't think that would be good and I don't think that would be proper. And I don't believe that this earmark is either. So, I would request that my friends on the majority side and on the minority side consider, before you knee-jerk oppose this amendment, consider what this is opening up for this House. And do you really want to open up that we're going to have earmarks to name things after ourselves? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. If the gentleman would yield, is there, then, a number of years in which someone can have been in Congress in which you are then allowed to name something after yourself?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).