John Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I will just add one thing as I have been listening to the general debate here. It seems that quite often on this floor, particularly on the other side of the aisle, that we measure how much we care about something by how much money we spend on it. If that was the measure of everything, Paris Hilton would be the most well-adjusted kid on the planet. It is not just how much we spend, but it is whether it is effective. It is whether it is duplicative, as we are alleging in the case of this program. It is whether it is getting the job done. It doesn't do any good for anybody to spend money that is duplicative or that isn't effective or that wastes a lot of money along the way. That is not good for anybody. So whether it is this program, frankly, or any others, we should, in this House and on this floor, realize that we are stewards of the taxpayers' money, not just spenders of the taxpayers' money, and we should ensure that it is being well spent, not just totally spent. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like the House and certainly the esteemed chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, to know that this amendment is essentially identical to the amendment you just offered and proffered, and it is my intention to ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment. However, I would like the opportunity to talk about my rationale behind it.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. We drafted it with that intention, and it is my intention and expectation that it does.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, we already had a debate and discussion about whether there should be earmarks and whether there should not be earmarks. And let me just say that as much as I think there are many inappropriate earmarks, I don't think there have to be no earmarks, but I do think that the process under which we do these earmarks now is still flawed. Now, admittedly, it is frankly, more open than it was last year. But it is still not as transparent and still not as accountable as it should be. And I offered a few suggestions which I will run through quickly, and then I would like to yield to the gentleman from Arizona, as to things that I think we could do in this House in order to make earmarks completely transparent and completely accountable so that this House is not embarrassed by them because, frankly, we have been embarrassed by them in the past, and there are ones I believe that are embarrassing this House that are presently involved in this bill and some other bills and will be in the future. So my suggestions are simple. First, disclose all the earmark requests. Why should we not do that? When we enter a bill, it is disclosed. It is public knowledge that this is something we are trying to make a change on. If any Member wants to spend the taxpayers' money on something and they want to do an official form where they sign that says they have no financial interest, then why shouldn't that be made public? Let's put every earmark in the text of the bill. As I believe the gentleman from Wisconsin knows, it is very difficult to write amendments to take all the earmarks out of the bill because they are not actually written in the bill. So let's write them in the bill so that we do that. And the bill should fully disclose all earmarks with the requesting Member, the amounts, recipients, and the purpose at least a week before we bring them to the floor. We got the certifications less than 24 hours, I think it was only about 12 hours, before we started debate on the last bill. And that is just not enough time to review or make clear what these amendments are. All earmarks should be available for discussion and open congressional hearing. If there are earmarks in a bill, there should be a congressional hearing on those earmarks. Now, that doesn't mean that if there are 200 that you are going to discuss every one, but certainly every one would be available for discussion at that point. All earmark programs should be previously authorized by Congress. If not, why do we even have an authorization process? If we are not going to follow it, if you are just going to be able to earmark anything you want, then why do we have an authorization process? And that is what I think is a lot of what has gone wrong with this process. They should serve a Federal interest or have some Federal nexus. The Federal Government does not, should not, cannot, will not fund every single need and every single desire of every Member and every person in this country. There are lots of things which are properly left to State and local governments and charitable organizations. So we should make it clear that we only spend Federal money on those things with a Federal nexus. No earmarks outside of a Member's own State. If the point of this is just to do things for your constituency, make sure you are doing things for your constituency. No earmarks for private entities without some kind of a competitive bid process. I will tell you a story of a defense contractor in my district who came to me and showed me this fine device, and I said, That's great, but how do I know it works? And if I knew it works, how do I know you are the best source for that? And if I knew you were the best source for that, how would I know that this is the right price for that? The answer is I don't think Members can know those things. So if it is a private entity, let's competitively bid it. Nine, no earmark can be added or increased in conference committee. That is a way to go around all of this. Let's make it that you take the Senate version or the House version but you don't make up a new one. And, finally, that the dollar amount of any earmark that is reduced by an amendment, that money should be saved to the taxpayer. It should go to debt reduction. It should go to deficit reduction. Congressman Culberson had a proposal in the Appropriations Committee, which was defeated, to do exactly that. And why shouldn't we do that? If there is money in a bill and we are not going to spend it on that, let's save it for the taxpayers. That is one of the ways we can reduce this deficit. So those are some thoughts that I have as to how this process can be improved. How much time do I have remaining, Madam Chairman?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Chairman, I intend to support the gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment. But I do believe, and I hope the gentleman from Wisconsin can hear me, that there is an alternative. There is something between the current very flawed process and no earmarks. I hope that we can engage in a discussion about this. I realize it is too late for it in this appropriations cycle but to discuss in the next appropriations cycle. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment since it is virtually identical to what the chairman has offered.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This particular amendment would eliminate all the earmarks in the bill, all 800 of them, all $1.1 billion of them. Now, I have two confessions to make about this amendment before I proceed here. Confession number one is that the amendment is rather inartfully drafted. And the way it is drafted, it may actually catch some things, some elements of spending, that were not technically part of the 800 earmarks in the bill. But the reason for that is that the 800 earmarks are not actually in the bill. Something I would like to address later. But the amendment is drafted the only way it can be drafted under the current situation, under the current process, to eliminate all of these 800 earmarks and $1.1 billion. The second confession I would like to make is that one of those 800 earmarks that is in the bill is one I requested. Now, I believe a couple other Members requested it as well, but it is definitely one that I requested. So you may be asking why would I be proposing an amendment to eliminate an earmark that I requested. Do I suddenly believe that the earmark that I requested is somehow not valid or somehow not appropriate? No. Had I believed it was not valid or not appropriate when I requested it some months ago, I would not have requested it. But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the process by which these earmarks happen stinks. And I believe that this process is terrible and that until we reform this process, we should eliminate all earmarks. And that, Mr. Chairman, is why I offer this amendment to you today. It is not because I think that necessarily all 800 earmarks, including my own, in this bill are inappropriate. I do think $1.1 billion is more money than I would like to see relative to this or any earmarks. But it is because until we reform this process and have a process that works, I don't think we should do any earmarks at all. The earmark process has, I believe, actually hurt not just Republicans and Democrats and not just taxpayers, but I believe it has hurt this institution. And I believe that is why Chairman Obey, the gentleman from Wisconsin, has expressed his own distaste for earmarks and the earmark process. So let me make a few suggestions, 10 of them precisely, if I may, as to how this process might be reformed, how we might get it right. First, put the earmarks in the bill. The reason we have had to draft this amendment so oddly is because the earmarks are not actually written in the text of the bill. If we are going to spend the taxpayers' money as Members of Congress on specific things, those specific things we are spending it on should be in the language of the bill that appropriates those expenditures. Second, let's have full disclosure of all the earmarks in the bill and let's have it at least a week before the vote. I think we got the list of these earmarks last, I think it was, Thursday or Friday, and here we are debating these today. There are 800 earmarks in this bill. It is a little tough for us or anyone else to go through 800 earmarks in just a couple of days. Third, let's have full disclosure of all earmark requests. Every earmark in this bill in theory has a certification from the Member who requested it claiming what they have requested and why and also claiming that they have no financial interest in that earmark. Let's make those public. Those were turned in, I can't remember exactly whether it was February or March. I think it was March. Why should those be under some secrecy? Why should all those earmark requests not be available to the public? And when we have full disclosure of earmarks, let's have real disclosure of earmarks. The disclosure that we got last week was one list that has the earmark amount and the project and another list that has the project and the Member requesting. So if you want to take the Member requesting and match it up with the amount, you have to match up the two lists somehow. Now, if there are only 10 earmarks, you could do that. But with 800 it is really hard to do, and not in a searchable database. In fact, in a few cases where we were able to get disclosure of the actual earmark request, which only happened yesterday afternoon, the description of the project in the earmark request is not the same as the description of the project on the earmark list. So what we have now is an attempt at some late partial disclosure. It is not full disclosure in any way, shape, or form of earmarks or earmark requests. Mr. Obey has suggested that Members often feel like they are ATMs. That is what this earmark process does. It diminishes, I think, the value of all of us that serve in this institution. We are here to make public policy. We are not ATMs. I was stunned when, in my first few months as a Member of this House, 70 different people came into my office not asking for a certain element of public policy, not encouraging me to support this or that or the other, but asking for money, asking for earmarks, because they saw Members of Congress as an ATM. Number four, we should not have any earmarks for programs that are not authorized; otherwise, why do we bother to authorize programs? If we are not going to go through the process of authorizing a program, then earmarks can come in and be about anything. I think that is what you have seen in some of Mr. Hensarling's and Mr. Flake's objections is that earmarks have become about almost anything. Number five, we should not have earmarks that do not serve a Federal interest and have a Federal nexus. This is Federal taxpayers' money. There are many great needs out there in cities, counties and States, but cities and counties and States have sources of revenue. It's not like we don't have enough to do here. It's not like we don't have other things that we could spend the money on. God forbid we might give it actually back to the taxpayers. But even if we weren't going to do that, there are obviously plenty of truly Federal priorities that we should not be fixing sewers and other things like that, which are clearly local priorities. Six, we should not be including earmarks that are requested outside of the State of a Member of Congress. Now, the point of these earmarks is to direct funds for things that our constituencies need. Why would we ever be wanting to direct funds for things that some other constituency needs? We know why. It's because some lobbyist or something somewhere requested it. So let's not be requesting or honoring earmarks that are outside of one's State. Seven, we shouldn't be giving earmarks to private entities without some kind of a competitive bidding process. You know, if other elements of the Federal Government were to award contracts for millions of dollars to private entities without some kind of bidding process, we would complain about it here. And we do complain about it when we see it, and we should complain about it when we see it. But yet under this earmark process, many earmarks are given directly to private entities without any competitive bidding process. Eight, conference reports should never increase an earmark. Now, everything we could do here in the House to disclose and provide sunshine for earmarks could be null and void if you simply can drop earmarks into a conference report that were not in either the House or the Senate version of the bill. So we should never have earmarks coming back to this floor that are more than the amount that was in either the House or the Senate version of that bill. Nine, earmarks should be available for discussion at a hearing. We're spending the public's money. It should be exposed, what we're doing; it should be clear to people what we're doing; and we should talk about it and be willing to stand up and defend it, or not do it. Ten, when we eliminate earmarks, the money we save should go into debt reduction. It should save the taxpayers' money. It should go to reduce the Federal deficit. Now unfortunately, if this amendment were to pass, I would love to tell you that the $1.1 billion to the taxpayers would be saved, but the way the rules are, it would take another amendment, a subsequent amendment to then save that money for the taxpayers. Mr. Culberson of Texas offered an amendment in the Appropriations Committee to change that rule so that if we do strike and/or eliminate any number of earmarks, that that money saved is actually saved, that it goes to debt reduction. But that amendment was defeated. So, Mr. Chairman, those are 10 things that could put sunshine on this earmark process. But we are a long ways from that sunshine. We are a long ways from that accountability. We are a long, long ways from all these earmarks being visible, justifiable and, in fact, justified. So until then, I have made and will continue to make proposals to eliminate all the earmarks in any bill regardless of whose they are, myself included, or others, until we reform the process. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Flake said it very well. This House can do better than this earmark process. We can do better than what is going on. Their earmarks have led to some of our colleagues who are now in jail. It has led to other problems with other colleagues. Let's reform it or get rid of it. This amendment is the beginning of that process. And Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members, even if they have earmarks in this bill, to support the beginning of reform or elimination of what has hurt this institution and has hurt taxpayers so much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I just wanted to bring to the chairman's attention a situation with HUD financing that kind of makes no sense to me, and a specific situation which I'm aware of involves the Villa Nueva Apartments, which are in San Ysidro in the San Diego area of California, where the owner of this multi-family, affordable housing project wants to sell it. The buyer wants to keep it as an affordable housing project. He's committed to keep the rents unchanged, but yet since it is HUD financed, under current, I guess, rulings or something that HUD is making, that 100 percent of the proceeds of this project would actually not be available to the seller. I don't know why someone who owns something would want to sell it if they couldn't have any of the proceeds. So, as a result, the seller may not sell this project. They may hold on to it for a couple of years, and then the restrictions will expire and then they could sell it for something else. So it seems to me that HUD's procedures on this are actually standing in the way of affordable housing companies acquiring and continuing affordable housing multi-unit projects.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Thank you.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the gentleman's desire to close, and I am happy to do that. But I believe that he should at least state some of the reasons that he believes this earmark is justified so I can at least have the opportunity to rebut those before he closes. But I am perfectly willing to allow him to have the last word. I suppose I will anticipate, perhaps, what the gentleman is going to say. I understand that the gentleman from Illinois may suggest that the Ethics Committee has approved that his district employee be the executive director of this commission, and I would take him at his word and assume that is the case. I don't think that is the issue here. We are talking about over $200,000 of taxpayers' funds here, and I think the question at issue is whether or not that is an appropriate use of Federal funds and what these Federal funds are going to be used for. If he is suggesting, as some of these reports indicated, that these are going to be spent on minority and business development procurement opportunities for an airport that doesn't yet exist, my question would be how can you have hiring or whatever opportunities for an airport that doesn't exist yet and won't exist even if it were approved today for some number of years? Is the gentleman willing to say that there will be no further advertising, no further lobbying, no further expenditures of that sort?

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

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from being used for the Wittenberg University East Asian Study Center. The committee report provides there will be $500,000 spent on this local project. Now, Wittenberg University is a private college. On all these earmark things that I am bringing up and that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) has brought up, it is not an issue of whether this is a good university, I am sure it is a great university; or whether this is a worthy, charitable endeavor, I am sure it is a worthy, charitable endeavor. It is a question of whether or not it is appropriate for taxpayers' funds. On the last amendment that I had talked about, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) made a very eloquent report of why he believes there should be a third airport in Illinois. But that really wasn't the point, as to whether there should be a third. I am not qualified. I don't know whether there should be a third airport in Chicago or not. The point was, is it appropriate to use Federal taxpayer funds to fund an organization that you set up that is for the purpose of basically applying political pressure to create this airport when it doesn't exist. I think that is clearly not appropriate. In this case here, this is to be used ``for the development of an undergraduate interdisciplinary program in international business, with a focus on the field of experience in Asia.'' According to the Web site, this East Asian Studies Journal has existed for 27 years. This is the 27th consecutive annual edition of this particular publication. So this center, it would appear, has existed for 27 years in this university. Again, Mr. Chairman, this is actually a Lutheran university. I am on the board of advisors of a Lutheran university in my district. I think they do very fine things. I just don't think it is appropriate to use taxpayer money. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I will just say that the certification actually says the funding will be used for the establishment of a center. Perhaps that is in error.