John Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4360, to designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Blind Rehabilitation Center in Long Beach, California, as the ``Major Charles R. Soltes, Jr., O.D. Department of Veterans Affairs Blind Rehabilitation Center.'' I was honored to introduce this legislation to recognize a true American Hero who was a constituent of mine from Irvine, CA. Major Soltes, 36, was the first military optometrist to be killed in action while on active duty. He was serving as a Public Health Officer with the 426th Civil Affairs Battalion, U.S. Army Reserve in Mosul, Iraq, assisting in the restoration of the medical infrastructure. On October 13, 2004, he was killed while returning from a hospital visit when his convoy was attacked with an improvised explosive device. The son of an Army officer and Vietnam veteran, Major Soltes was a graduate of Norwich University, a military school in Vermont, and the New England College of Optometry. He entered the U.S. Army Medical Service Corps in 1994 as an Army optometrist and provided eye care services to service men and women at home and abroad. Major Soltes served in Texas, the Republic of Korea, and at the United States Military Academy at West Point. During his military service, Major Soltes completed a residency at the prestigious Brooke Army Medical Center. He earned adjunct faculty appointments at the University of Houston College of Optometry, the State University of New York State College of Optometry, and the Northeasrn State University College of Optometry. At the United States Military Academy at West Point, Major Soltes served as director of the Optometry Residency Program. In 1998, he earned his fellowship in the American Academy of Optometry. After completing his military duties in 1999, he moved to Irvine, CA, where he started a private practice, joined the Army Reserve and became the clinical director at Irvine Vision Institute, a refractive surgery specialty center in Irvine, CA. Major Soltes leaves behind his wife, Sally Huong Dang, O.D., and three sons, Ryan, Brandan, and Robert Harrison. Major Soltes is also survived by his father, COL (retired) Charles R. Soltes, Sr., his mother, Nancy Soltes, and two siblings, Carolyn Soltes Matthies, and Jeffrey Soltes. Madam Speaker, I am pleased this legislation has received wide bipartisan support with 73 cosponsors including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, Bob Filner. It also has broad support outside of Congress from groups such as the American Optometric Association to the following Veteran Service Organizations: Blind Veterans Association, Vietnam Veterans of America, American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Paralyzed Veterans of America, AMVETS, POW/MIA, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Disabled American Veterans, and Jewish War Veterans. I have had the opportunity to meet with Major Soltes's widow, Dr. Sally Dang and their three outstanding sons. This is a family of such immense strength, but also of pride for their husband and father, his life, his accomplishments, his service and his sacrifice. Dr. Dang recounted that if her husband had the opportunity to come back and serve again, he would do it without hesitation. When we name this center for Major Soltes today, we honor his family, his memory, and his military service, but also his service as a doctor who helped people see more clearly. Fittingly, Dr. Dang is also a practicing optometrist. May this honor today help us all to see--to see better with our eyes, of course, and to help those veterans suffering with blindness. But also, to see the selfless and wonderful people upon whom our freedoms as a people rest. Major Soltes lies amongst them. May God bless his family and his memory.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health care bill. Mr. Speaker, those in favor of this bill often talk about the 30 million that they say will be covered by this bill. For the sake of discussion, let's just assume for the moment that they are correct. There are over 300 million Americans in this country right now . . . what will this do to the other 270 million Americans? Well the answer is that they all will suffer as a result of this legislation. Some will lose the health care coverage they have right now, because their insurance will be priced out of the market and their employer won't be able to afford the fines. Some will lose their jobs as the deluge of taxes and mandates begin to take effect, and some will lose out on good quality medical care as doctors stop practicing medicine and hospitals close because the practice of medicine no longer will be able to pay the bills. Everyone will pay for the new taxes whether directly or indirectly, and everyone who does not get their insurance from the government will have to pay more. It even goes so far as to impact our nation's veterans and members of the military because their health care coverage does not meet the standards set forth in the bill. This will result in fines for our nation's veterans for having veterans coverage, and it will result in fines to members of the military and their families just for having coverage provided by the military. Mr. Speaker, how does this make sense? I am strongly opposed to this legislation. It will require more IRS agents to be hired in order to process the myriad of new fines, taxes, fees, and penalties that this bill creates. And even the President's own actuaries say that this bill will raise total health care costs in the United States by $222 billion. The very same actuary went on to estimate that nearly 20% of all health care providers who accept Medicare will become unprofitable and likely go out of business within 10 years. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a bad deal. It would serve my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to listen to the voices of the American people. For months, the American people have decried their opposition to this government takeover of health care from every state in the union, and this weekend they have descended on Washington to make one final plea: don't ruin the best parts of the American health care system by replacing them with the worst. Mr. Speaker, don't pledge to insure 30 million Americans at the expense of the other 270 million in this country.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Speaker, analysts tell us that the Medicare system in this country will be bankrupt in 7 years and that Social Security and Medicaid are not far behind. What that means is we can't pay for the entitlements we've got. So what does this health care bill do? It adds more entitlements. It's like learning that you can't pay the mortgage on your house and buying a second one and five more cars. Americans wouldn't do that, but President Obama and the Democrats in this House are going to. We can't pay for the entitlements we've got. Let's pay for them first before we add new ones. Unfortunately, because of the actions of this House, America is going bankrupt, and this health bill will hasten that bankruptcy. Vote ``no'' and kill this bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this resolution. I don't mean to cast any aspersions on the gentleman's alma mater, nor on any Terp fans or anything like that. But we're having a discussion this week, a lot about health care. And there's a lot of discussion on the government-run health care bill about fairness and equity in the process. I would like to point out a little bit about the fairness and equity of the process of this resolution. Back last October, I authored a similar resolution--we all often do these things--for a university in my district, the University of California at Irvine, also known as UCI, whose men's volleyball team won the championship. They didn't just make the playoffs. They won the national championship. And the majority leader, whose bill this is, pulled that resolution from the floor. So he did not allow that resolution last October to be heard. Therefore, those kids who won that national championship were not able to get the same recognition that apparently today these players for Maryland, who are just in the playoffs, are going to receive. Second of all, Mr. Speaker, in the past, we have done these for teams that win national championships. This is for a team that's making the playoffs, one of 65. Now, there are a lot of people out there, Mr. Speaker, who believe that we're wasting the taxpayers' money and the taxpayers' time by doing these sorts of resolutions. There's an argument for that. There is also an argument to be made that it's a great thing for the kids who win these to have these additional resolutions to put in their trophy case. But the one thing I do believe is that we shouldn't descend into doing everyone that wins that gets into a playoff. That would be 65 teams just here in men's basketball. And think of all the men's and women's sports that are out there and how many teams that would include if we begin to do that as well. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have here the sports section from today's Washington Post. I will read from the front page where it says that according to a study, Maryland had the lowest graduation rate, 8 percent, among the 65 NCAA tournament teams. Given that this is being put forth in the Education and Labor Committee, if we were going to look at all the 65 teams in the NCAA championships, should we be considering the academics of the teams that are in or not in? Mr. Speaker, and to the majority leader, I don't like doing this. I can see the banter going on. These things are usually fun. They're usually easy. But it seems like in this House recently, we have lost a sense of equity and fairness in the process. It seems like if a school is represented by someone from the minority party, they don't get a recognition, whereas, perhaps if they're from the majority, they do. It seems like there are different thresholds, different standards, different ways that things happen in this House rather than a simple equity and fairness. So for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution, and I would encourage my colleagues to oppose it, again, not to cast any aspersions on the University of Maryland but to send a message that process matters and that the way fairness and equity matters, and little things like this aren't nearly as important as big things like the government-run health care bill that we're doing this week. But the fact is that this little bit is endemic of what is going on in the bigger bills in this House in the way it operates and the way it has, unfortunately, in this Congress.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the University of California, Irvine's men's volleyball team for winning the 2009 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Men's Volleyball National Championship. The NCAA Championship title is UC Irvine's second title in three years, which makes them one of five programs to have won more than one NCAA men's volleyball Championship title. The Anteaters, who were ranked in the Nation's top 10 for 75 consecutive weeks, including No. 1 for 21 of those weeks, achieved many historic accomplishments during the 2008-2009 season. They finished the year 27-5 overall. Ryan Ammerman was named the tournament's most outstanding player with 12 blocks, six kills, and 55 assists in the championship match. Taylor ``Bones'' Wilson led the Anteaters with 21 kills followed by Carson Clark with 15 kills. In addition, Ammerman, Wilson, and Clark were all named to the NCAA All-Tournament team. UC Irvine men's volleyball team had four players selected to the American Volleyball Coaches Association (AVCA) All-America Team. Senior setter Ryan Ammerman garnered first-team honors on the AVCA All-America Team. Jordan DuFault, Kevin Wynne, and Carson Clark earned second-team accolades on the AVCA All-America Team. The senior class of Ryan Ammerman, Brent Asuka, Nick Spittle, Jon Steller, and Taylor Wilson has become the most successful graduating class in school history, with a 101-30 record in their four years winning two NCAA Championship titles. Furthermore, senior All-American Jon Steller was named UC Irvine's Lauds & Laurels Outstanding Athlete. Sophomore outside hitter Jordan DuFault earned second team All-American honors and was ranked nationally in four categories, including kills, digs, hitting percentage, and blocks. The Anteaters captured the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation (MPSF) regular season title with a 19-3 record. Also, freshman Carson Clark was selected as the MPSF Freshman of the Year as well as a first-team All-MPSF honoree. Congratulations to head coach, John Speraw, and the men's volleyball team of the University of California, Irvine, for winning the 2009 NCAA Division I Men's Volleyball National Championship. I am proud to recognize the achievements of the players, coaches, students, alumni, and staff who were instrumental in helping the University of California, Irvine win the national title. It is an honor to recognize UC Irvine, under the leadership of Chancellor Michael V. Drake, M.D., as it continues to establish itself as a world-class research university, and as one of the top universities in the Nation.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield myself such time as I may consume. You know, maybe I shouldn't have gone to that USC football game because they lost, and so that was rather depressing. I don't know how the Carolina Panthers did, but----

Mr. CAMPBELL. They lost, too. All right. Well, then, both of us didn't have a particularly good weekend. But as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) described, we've had discussions on this thing, and he has been very helpful and worked very constructively on this. In fact, the language that is in the bill now reflects a number of suggestions that the gentleman from North Carolina made which clarified some things that were, frankly, confusing and conflicting in the bill. So I appreciate Mr. Watt's constructive work on this and all that he has done with this. And yes, he's right, sometimes these things get very complicated and you sit down and you try and figure out, well, what exactly does this say and are we saying the right thing? But I think we now have reached agreement that what is in the bill is the right thing. There is broad agreement, as the gentleman from North Carolina suggested, with myself, with him, and broad agreement in this House that automobile dealers, in the normal course of their business, do not lend money and are not financial institutions and should not be subject to the additional regulation of the CFPA. If, however, they do lend money and act like financial institutions, then they will be subject. That is what this bill says. It is the right thing to say, and I think we have reached a good conclusion on this. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina very much for his very good and constructive work on this. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve.

Mr. CAMPBELL. And I have enjoyed working with you as well. I am glad that we are able to be where we are on this and look forward to working in the future as the bill moves forward. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, we need to change some things so we don't face financial collapse. We can change those things without creating an entirely new agency--spending billions of new dollars, hiring thousands of new bureaucrats, housing them in a new building, and creating a conflict between the safety and soundness of banks and consumer protection. The underlying bill creates all of those problems. This amendment accomplishes consumer protection without all of that. Support this amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I could talk about a lot of bad things about this tax and this bill. I could talk about how inefficient it is, how it costs almost as much to collect as it raises in revenue. I could talk about how most of the income that would be taxed or most of the wealth would be taxed here has already been taxed once. I could talk about the morality of saying that in this country some people are allowed to leave the fruits of a lifetime of work to their children, and other people are not allowed to leave the fruits of their lifetime work to their children. But there are two other things I want to emphasize in this short time here this morning. One is that the one thing we need more than anything else in this country right now are jobs. And this bill will kill jobs. Why? Because when people are subject to this tax, they spend all their time, effort and money, and as a CPA who worked on this at one time I have seen it up front and close and personal, reducing the value of their wealth so they can reduce the tax. That does not create jobs. Without this tax, if the tax were eliminated, those people would continue to be employing that wealth in income-producing efforts in the sorts of things that create jobs. But also this particular bill that's before us today is not indexed for inflation. Now let's see. What other tax do we have that's not indexed for inflation? Oh, yeah, the alternative minimum tax, which when that was passed, this House was told, well, it is only going to tax 139 taxpayers. Don't you worry about it. It's just to get the very wealthy, just the really bad people. But now because it's not indexed for inflation, that tax now, instead of 139 people, hits 25 million people. And this death tax, not indexed for inflation, will do exactly the same thing, particularly when the inflation that the Obama administration is heading us towards comes together. This is a bad bill. Defeat it.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) for his support of this bill and his kind words about this bill. I would also like to thank the Judiciary Committee for working with us on the Financial Services Committee to come up with language that is mutually acceptable and works for everyone on this bill. In light of the recent Wall Street scandals with Bernie Madoff and Stanford and others, we think it's appropriate to grant the Securities and Exchange Commission some additional enforcement tools that they need to fight fraud and corruption in the markets. As Mr. Kanjorski suggested--and I won't repeat the details of the bill which he accurately described--but if you think about it, most of these SEC enforcement issues will involve investors and perhaps conspirators from all over the country. But yet under current law, the SEC only has the authority to subpoena someone if they live within 100 miles of the Federal courthouse in which the trial is held. So this means that if they need witness testimony from a victim, from a co-conspirator, from somebody involved with the investment, from somebody who participated in the alleged crime or who was a victim of the alleged crime, they have to get a deposition from them if they live more than 100 miles outside of the courthouse. Those depositions can be costly, difficult to get, and they clearly are not as effective in a trial circumstance as a witness actually in the trial. This bill would correct that and simply give the SEC the same enforcement capabilities, the same subpoena capabilities that many other Federal enforcement agencies have in similar circumstances. So I appreciate the bipartisan support. I appreciate the comments. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will yield back the balance of my time as well.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bipartisan bill authored by the lady from New York and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King). You know, this bill is really pretty simple, and it's really just about transparency, disclosure and sunshine. Last year, $700 billion of taxpayer money was made available in order to provide a rescue plan for the financial system, which was troubled at that time. We all know that much of this money has gone out, but what we don't really know is what it has gone to do, what it is actually being used for, where it is being employed. Now there are those who will say that, well, because there are dollars, if you put dollars into a given financial institution, they're fungible and you don't really know which dollar went to what, and I understand that that argument has some legitimacy. But the point of this bill is, Let's disclose and let's make available what we do know. There is a lot of information out there, as the gentlelady from New York suggested, which is in multiple agencies and multiple places, and it's just simply not available to Members of the House or to Members of Congress so that we can make an effective determination of whether this money has, is, and will be used in a manner consistent with its original objective which was to stabilize the financial system. This bill, what it really does is, as it says, to make available, ongoing, continuous and close to real-time updates of the status of funds distributed through a standardized electronic database. That's something which technology today enables us to do, and it's something which the taxpayers and the Members of Congress have the right to see in order to better evaluate the use of these funds. So I stand in support of this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, one of the more Orwellian aspects of the Pelosi health care bill is that, amongst its 1,990 pages, it uses the word ``shall'' 3,425 times. That is 3,425 times that this bill compels somebody somewhere to do or to not do something, and that doesn't even include several hundred mentions of the word ``must'' or ``require.'' Yet, with all of those compulsions in there which are telling Americans what to do, there is an interesting use of the word ``may,'' and that's relative to Members of Congress--to us. We may be a part of the government option, not must, not require, not shall, but we may participate in the public option--in the so-called public option--or in the government-run health care plan. It is another case where this Democratic Congress is saying, Do what I say, not what I do.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Democrat majority in this town is determined to install a government-run health care system which will be costly, inefficient, and provide bad care. We all know that. I happen to support something that's directionally opposite to that, something called the Patients' Choice Act, which, instead of putting new bureaucracies in between people and their doctors, it would eliminate some of the existing bureaucracies and get employers and the government out of the way between people and their doctors so that they can control their own health care. But you know what? As important as the health care debate is here, do you know what people in America want right now? Jobs. They want jobs. And if there is one thing this plan that the Democrats are proposing will do, it will cost even more Americans their jobs. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you and I would ask the President where are the jobs you promised? Let's move forward in America on a job agenda, not an agenda of government-run health care.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Brian Burke, Executive Vice President and General Manager of the Anaheim Ducks Professional Hockey Team from 2005 to 2008. Mr. Burke is one of Orange County's most dedicated, distinguished, and honorable citizens. Born in Providence, Rhode Island, and raised in Edina, Minnesota, Brian resides with his wife Jennifer and has six children: Katie, Patrick, Brendan, Molly, Mairin and Gracie. In 2007, Mr. Burke guided the Anaheim Ducks to the first Stanley Cup Championship in California history, and in 2008 he received two outstanding honors: On June 6th, he was chosen by USA Hockey as General Manager of the 2010 U.S. Olympic Hockey Team, and on August 7th he was named a recipient of the 2008 Lester Patrick Award for outstanding service to hockey in the United States. Burke is also the General Manager of the 2009 USA World Championships Team. Madam Speaker, Brian Burke is an American citizen with a passion for supporting the United States military. Mr. Burke organized a first-of- its-kind two-day event to support the families of active duty military personnel at the Honda Center in 2008. The event, which included Ducks' players and their families, welcomed ``Operation Homefront''--a non- profit organization that provides emergency assistance and morale to our troops, the families they leave behind, and injured soldiers upon their return home. Brian also supported the ``Wounded Warriors Project,'' a non-profit organization that assists severely wounded soldiers to transition back into life when they suffer from serious and traumatic injuries. To recognize our Wounded Warriors and the United States Marines, Brian Burke and the Anaheim Ducks delivered the Stanley Cup for its first ever visit to Camp Pendleton in 2007. Mr. Burke has also been very involved in Orange County charities. He has served as a Board Member on the Board of Directors for the Children's Hospital of Orange County (CHOC) as well as supported and donated to the Orangewood Children's Foundation, Share Ourselves and the Children's Bureau. Brian also promoted cancer awareness in the Orange County community by launching ``Hockey Fights Cancer'' nights at Ducks' games. I know Mr. Burke'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 community leaders. Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor Mr. Brian Burke today as an outstanding American citizen and community leader.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. You know, I am a native Californian, born in Los Angeles. In fact, I am a fourth-generation Californian. My family was a Gold Rush family in 1849. If you look back in the history of California for those 160 years, it has always been about water, where there is water. Where we could get water in California there are jobs, there is growth, there is prosperity, there is opportunity. When we didn't bring water to places in California, we didn't have those things. So this debate we are having now is not new for our State, but it is important for our State, and I understand why my colleagues from the Bay Area want this recycling program. As has been mentioned, that is not really the issue here. As my colleague Mr. Miller and I have discussed, in Orange County, where I come from, we have some of the world's leading recycling programs. They work, they are effective, and we ought to do more of them in other places. But what we are talking about here is that there are other places where we need water in California. Now, I don't represent the Central Valley, but the Central Valley is the breadbasket of California, arguably of the country. There are jobs disappearing and there are businesses disappearing and there are farms disappearing, because of a man-made water crisis. It is not because of a drought. It is not because the water isn't available. It is because we won't turn on some pumps 12 months a year to provide the water to those farmers so they can grow food for us and for the world, to create jobs, and to feed Americans and generate export for our economy. The water provided by those pumps, 25 percent of the water in southern California and the L.A. area also comes from the Sacramento River Delta where those pumps come from. The travesty of this bill is not what is in it; it is what is not in it. And what could have been in it is the opportunity to turn on those pumps, which have been 12 months a year for over 50 years. It is not like this is a new idea or new environment. It is to get that water for San Francisco, and that is great. But let's get water for the Central Valley and the farmers in California, and let's get water for southern California as well. Let's not just deal with one part of the State. Let's deal with the whole State. So, Madam Speaker, I would ask that we reject this rule because of what it doesn't have. Let's give the Central Valley a chance. We need jobs. We need economic activity. Turn those pumps on. Turn this rule down.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I hear the chairman's comments and remarks. There is no argument with anyone, I think, on this floor that executive pay has been an issue, that there have been excesses and that there have been problems that have been created in companies and the economy with executive compensation. I think I would argue that rather than excessive risk taking, that it's more about short-term thinking instead of long-term thinking, which, by the way, is way bigger than just executive pay and is way bigger than the scope of this bill, and which this bill will not solve. But that's another issue. The question for me is whether this is the right way to deal with it. I would argue no, because is the only problem out there in corporate governance? Is the only thing that has created problems for companies related to executive pay? No. Let's look at General Motors and Chrysler and their recent problems. Were their problems created because of executive pay? I'm not sure I've heard anybody argue that. But were their problems caused, in part at least, because of excessive union contracts? Yes. How about with retirement programs that were unfundable over time? Yes. What about other companies where perhaps there have been legal settlements that have created problems that have been fatal or resulted in companies going bankrupt? Those have occurred. How about mergers and acquisitions? So what are we going to do? Are we going to have shareholders vote on pay, on mergers, on acquisitions, on union contracts, on retirement pay, on legal settlements, on fees to attorneys? Any of those arguably can bring a company down. Should the shareholders have a say on that? You know, obviously the shareholders are the ultimate owners of the company. If you want to give them a say on pay, fine. Then you'd better give them a say on the rest of that. But I'm not sure anybody on this floor thinks that that's the right thing to do. The best way for shareholders to express their displeasure with the management or operation of a company is through the board of directors. That's the way it has been done, and that's the way it should be done.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, the Cash for Clunkers program was inartfully drafted. It is more complex and cumbersome than it needs to be. The administration of it is not going very well at all, but it has worked. And, Mr. Speaker, we have passed a number of things in this Congress this year intended to stimulate the economy. The vast majority of them have not had that effect, but this one has, and it has clearly worked. For the initial $1 billion to be exhausted, that means that roughly 250,000 new vehicles must have been sold in just the last week or two in order to exhaust all of that money. That is clearing inventories in car dealerships, which means car dealers will be ordering more cars. When they order more cars, plants will begin to run again. Plants will open up. They will be producing more cars, and people will go back to work. There will be suppliers that will produce supplies, various parts for those cars, steel mills producing for those cars, and those people will go back to work. There will be trucks and trains that deliver those cars, and those people will go back to work. And Mr. Speaker, the $2 billion for this is coming out of the existing funding, so it is not increasing the debt or the deficit any more than what has already been there. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. I support this effort. It is the one thing that we have done here in this Congress that is absolutely working. It is stimulating the economy. It is creating jobs, and we want it to create more.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have at the desk Campbell amendment No. 1.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike the $3 million earmark for the Rapid Deployable Shelter project, which money would go to Johnson Outdoors Inc. Mr. Chairman, during the debate on the previous earmark, there's been a lot of discussion on all the previous earmarks about how the earmarks say that they are to be competitively bid. I guess the question that I would have is: If, in fact, the earmarks are to be competitively bid, why did the author/ sponsor of this earmark send in his certification letter to the ranking member and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to say, ``The entity to receive funding for this project is Johnson Outdoors Inc., 625 Conklin Road, Binghamton, New York, 13903.'' So I would ask the question of the sponsor: If these are to be competitively bid, how do you reconcile that with the statement that ``the entity to receive funding for this project is''?