John Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In conclusion, it includes an office, et cetera. I just don't believe that we should use the power and authority we have while in office to use taxpayer funds to create monuments to ourselves or to participate in the creation of a monument to ourselves. That is just not something that I believe we should be doing. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, first of all, I am happy to stand up here and identify myself with, as the majority party says, ``the fringe.'' You know, you may have noticed recently that the approval ratings for this Congress are not very good. In fact, I think the latest I saw was that only 17 percent of Americans believe that this Congress is doing a good or a fair job. So I guess that being on the fringe of this Congress is meaning that we agree and associate ourselves with 83 percent of the American people. I would tell my friends on the majority that I am very happy to be on the fringe in Washington but on the mainstream outside of Washington. And the mainstream outside of Washington wants to keep their own money to spend it on what they want. And they believe, Madam Chairman, even if the other side doesn't, Americans believe, and they are right, that government wastes some of their tax money. And what this proposed amendment does is it would increase spending on this bill by 4.6 percent instead of 4.8 percent. It is a reduction over what is proposed by a quarter of a percent. A quarter of a percent. It still provides an increase of $6.6 billion over last year. So under this amendment if there is a government program that is scheduled to get a million dollars, it would instead have to struggle through on $997,500. Madam Chairman, I would ask you, I understand that it appears that the Members of the majority party believe that life as we know it will end if that million-dollar government program must exist on $997,500, but I don't think that the majority of Americans feel that. Let me point out again that first of all this amendment is not a cut because one equals one. Two is more than one even if you want three. So this amendment still enables a gigantic $6.6 billion increase in spending on this bill. But what it would do is it would put $379 million back in taxpayers' pockets, back towards deficit reduction. So it is not a cut. The other thing that is amazing to me in this whole debate and discussion is there seems to be a direct correlation on the majority side between how much you spend on something and the outcome you are going to get. If that were the case, you could take every school in America, line them up by how much money is spent per student and you should see a direct correlation with the outcomes with how those students succeed out of school. Well, there are many situations where there are schools spending $3,000 to $4,000 a student significantly outperforming schools spending 10, 12, $15,000 per student in the same place. Why if there were a direct correlation between how much you spend on something and the outcome, then wouldn't Paris Hilton be the most well- adjusted kid on the planet; and I think perhaps she is not. So does anybody out there believe that in this gigantic bill of billions and billions of dollars, that there is not one-quarter of a percent of waste, that is not one-quarter of a percent less that any given agency could do without than they have now? Now I know that my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to have a very difficult time understanding what it means to save the taxpayers a little money, what it means to ask government to be a little more efficient, so I would like to explain it to you graphically, if I may. This, Madam Chairman, represents 100 percent of a government program. I have used a donkey because I feel that is something that the majority party has some familiarity with. This represents 100 percent of a government spending program. Let's look and see what we have seen so far. There was an amendment to reduce this program which has already been increased by 1 percent, so there is 99 percent of a government spending program. Madam Chairman, I would suggest perhaps people in the gallery and people at home may not even be able to tell much of a difference. But the majority party rejected that. The amendment from the lady from Colorado was a half a percent reduction, so here is 99\1/2\ percent of a government spending program. Looks to me like that donkey is pretty much intact. I think it could probably survive. But that was rejected just a moment ago by the majority party. So here is one last chance, one more chance. I would ask my Democratic colleagues: Can this government program survive like that with 99.75 percent of its spending? You know what, I think the American people will look at this and say yeah, they can. You know what that means, it means that $379 million back in the American people's pockets and back to reduce this deficit and hopefully leading us towards no longer stealing the Social Security surplus. I don't think they see much difference here, but they will see a difference at home. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Thank you. You know, the question before us is $11.8 million, as I mentioned to you before, is a cut from $12.5 million. So the question I would ask you back is, well, why is it not $12.5 million?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Thank you for yielding. You know, I was trying to do the math on the previous one. I guess the question before us is this: can the program you described before, because I'm a little behind on my math here, that was $11.8 million, can it survive on $11.78 million? Is that going to mean the end of the world as we know it? Is that going to mean that this program is devastated? Are you telling me that there is not a quarter of a percent that any agency or any program in government can find that they can do their job as well?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I guess that means that you have proposed a cut in that program if it's already below where it was. So I guess you had proposed a cut in that program. So I would ask you, I guess, if you cut that program, you must have some reason that you believe that it should be cut.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. If you already established it as a cut below last year's level, then yes, it is. But I would ask the gentleman that, is the gentleman proposing to increase the deficit, which, with this amendment, the deficit would go down and taxpayers would have more money?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Blunt, the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side, I suppose, has remaining?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, I stand here as a member of this fringe that is happy to associate with the 83 percent of Americans who think this Congress is doing a poor job. We have got a lot of talk about cuts, but there is one thing that's clear. There is an increase in this bill as written. There is an increase of $6.6 billion in the deficit over what there would be if this bill held spending flat. That is an increase in raiding the Social Security surplus, and that will lead to the many tax increases that your side is currently proposing both in your budget and in other bills floating around in both this Chamber and the other. Those are increases there. This bill will not stop those increases, but just a little bit of a time, a quarter of a percent, it will help to slow the growth. I would ask for everyone's support on this bill. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is this strikes an earmark, $200,000, for the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy in Las Vegas, Nevada. Let me explain, Mr. Chairman. I know that the gentlewoman from Nevada, who is here, and I believe the gentleman from Nevada also are supportive of this. What this amendment is not about is about the merits of this particular academy, as I understand it is a charter school, or whether it is a good school or not. I received a call yesterday from the director of the Andre Agassi Foundation, who has provided a lot of the funding for this school, inviting me to come to the school in August and to see what they are doing and take a tour. And that is very nice and very flattering, but that actually isn't the point. I am sure it is a very fine school. I am sure it is doing lots of great work. But my understanding is that this school is at least half, if not more than that, funded by charitable donations, including from Mr. Agassi and from one of the Las Vegas casinos and lots of other people. What I raise this about is whether we should be using earmarks to give out like this to what are essentially charitable works. Now, I am sure there are many other good schools in Nevada. There are many in my area. I am sure there are fine museums. I am sure there are fine research facilities. I am sure there are all kinds of different things that we can spend Federal money on. But I don't think that when the taxpayers pay their taxes that they intend that part of it is a repository for us, as Members of Congress, any of us as Members of Congress, to delve into that money and go out and say this is a charitable organization which I find worthy in my district and here is the taxpayers' money for that from me. Because it is not from me. It is not from the Member of Congress. It is the taxpayers' money. And I think we are better off leaving the taxpayers with their own money so they can give it to whatever charitable organizations, schools, museums, historical developments, research, that they feel they should. And I just don't feel that it is our right, as Members of Congress, to hand this money out, no matter how beneficial or how worthy the cause is, to hand this out to various charities in our districts, because it is not our money, and act as though it is something that we did. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, you know, I don't disagree, and I'm not in a position to disagree with anything about this school said by either the lady from Nevada or the gentleman from Nevada. Again, let me reiterate, that is not my point. My point is that there are probably many other schools that are worthy. There are probably all kinds of health considerations that are worthy. There are probably museums that are worthy. There are all kinds of things that are worthy. But the Federal Government does not traditionally fund charter schools. Schools are inherently local and State, and I think should be, and hopefully will continue to be. It's not a Federal school. And so I just don't think that it is right or appropriate that any of us pick something and essentially say this is where we're going to use the taxpayers' funds in a charitable endeavor. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. You said that this is not starting this, but it does not exist today; is that correct, sir?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. And so, you don't agree with me, or see any problem with us, as Members, sending taxpayer funds in the creation of things named after ourselves while we're still here?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, I would like to point out to the gentleman that under his logic that $141 million proposed in here is actually a cut, because it is a cut from $150 million. It is a $9 million cut from $150 million. Why aren't we spending $150 million?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. You see, you only can measure from what-- --

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chair, just one comment for my colleague from California, let me just say that I completely agree with you that the Pentagon is not immune from waste, fraud and abuse, nor is the Defense budget, nor is any part of the Federal Government. I agree with you on that point. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. How much time do I have remaining, Madam Chairman?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

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