John Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman, and I would just like to amplify what he said, that if in fact what this amendment does is take spending to last year, then it's not a cut at all. It's not even a cut of the bureaucracy that you're talking about, it is in fact making this line or this area of expenditure the same as last year.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. There were so many inaccuracies in that last speech, but there are at least a couple that I would like to correct relative to taxes, one of them being that in the last 6 years, the tax reductions that have been put in place actually reduce taxes for every single American who pays income taxes, and actually took some people that were paying income taxes and took them off the tax rolls. And that the Democrats' budget, which has in fact been passed, unlike the minimum wage increase which is not actually in the law at this point, but the Democrats' budget which has in fact been passed has proposed potentially to roll back all of those tax increases and thereby increase taxes on every single taxpayer in America. With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I did, I believe. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, whether it's you, or anyone in this room or whoever, we have money that we spend on things, and we like to shop to see if we are getting the best price, getting the same product or as good a product or a better product for the best price. That's what this amendment says, is that we're going to allow people to shop or get the better product for the best price. Mr. Chairman, it is beyond me why the majority party would object to something so sensible, so reasonable in being a steward of the taxpayers' dollars.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I will yield.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I was not going to speak on this amendment. I was somewhat encouraged by the silence on the other side of the aisle when it originally came out. But then when the majority party indicated that they are going to oppose this amendment, I have to stand up and say just, at least, one thing. We are going to have some amendment debates later today about how much money to spend on various programs and how much to spend on various things and how much to spend overall on this bill, whether we should be spending more of the taxpayers' money on things or less of the taxpayers' money on things. We are going to have that debate today and tomorrow and the next day, and there are certainly disagreements between the majority side and the minority side on those issues as to whether we should tax people more and spend their money or tax people less and let them spend their own money. But, interestingly, this amendment isn't about that. This amendment doesn't change the funding in the bill. It simply says we ought to have a mechanism to make the money that's there go farther. I really don't understand why my Democratic colleagues would have some ideological objection to that. If we are going to spend a certain amount of money on a program, regardless of what that program does, couldn't we all agree that we would like it to do as much as it can with that amount of money? Certainly, if we allow private contractors, or contractors, the opportunity to say, hey, we can do this thing for less money, and we can do the same thing, and the agency determines that it's the same thing for less money, wouldn't we want them to do that? This, actually, is not about spending less money. We will get to that later. But this is about having the money we spend go farther. I mean, it's just like for people, Mr. Chairman, that are watching at home, imagining that, well, I am going to go out and, you know, get dry cleaning today, but I don't care how much it costs, and I don't care if the place next door does it cheaper, and they are every bit as good or better. I don't care, I am going to use the more expensive place because we are not going to make competition.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. This debate that began yesterday and continues today is really about two things. One thing we've heard a lot about here recently in the last few speeches that people have given is whether or not the majority party wants to have earmark spending that is secret and that is not subject to individual vote. We believe that such spending ought not to be secret and ought to be subject to an individual vote. That's one thing. But there is another thing, and that is that this bill simply spends too much. This bill has an increase in it, and I know the gentleman from North Carolina and I had a discussion on this yesterday. Let's just talk about the nonemergency spending. This bill increases spending from year to year by 13.6 percent. Again, that is a lot. It is a lot more than inflation, which has been running under 3 percent. It is a lot more than most people see as an increase in their salaries. Why, in fact, if someone out there listening, Mr. Chairman, makes $15 an hour, if they were to get a similar increase this year, they would make over $17 an hour next year. I mean, most people out there making $15 an hour would love an increase to $17 an hour, but they're probably not going to get a $2 increase, but yet this bill proposes to expand the spending by 13.6 percent. Now, people on the other side of the aisle, Democrats that continually criticize our amendments and the things we're talking about by saying that we are cutting spending, the two amendments before us right now and the previous amendments we voted on last night and most of the amendments, if not all, that we're going to see later, are not cutting anything. They are slowing the growth. If you get $1 a month and somebody gives you $2 a month, that's an increase; it's not a cut. But they keep saying cut on the other side of the aisle so much that I believe perhaps a little visual assistance is required. So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make this very, very clear. One equals one. If you are getting $1 and you still get $1, that is not a cut. That's the same amount of money that you had before. Two is actually more than one. So that if you were getting $1 and now you get $2, that also is not a cut, even if you wanted $3. Because what Members on the Democratic side of the aisle continue to say is, oh, we're getting one, we want three, you're only going to give us two and so, therefore, it's a cut. No, it is not. One equals one, two is more than one, regardless of what you want. Mr. Rogers will propose an amendment later that has already been described by the other side as a massive cut, except it will leave a 7 percent increase, I believe, roughly, in spending in this bill. A 7 percent increase from year to year is not a cut. The amendment that is before us right now, Mr. McHenry's amendment, proposes to spend less money than the bill before us on the Secretary's bureaucratic operation, but it actually allows the Secretary's bureaucrats to spend more than they spent last year. That, again, is not a cut. So, Mr. Chairman, let us make it clear here that Republicans are not proposing to cut this bill. We are not proposing to cut spending in the Department of Homeland Security. We are proposing to increase it at a rate which is sustainable because if you continue to increase things at 13.6 percent a year, then that requires that everyone out there who's making that $15 an hour get a raise to $17 and give it all to the government in order to keep paying for this sort of increase. American taxpayers cannot afford that kind of increase after increase after increase.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I've been listening to the debate on this particular amendment, and I've heard a number of people who are opposed to it speak, I suppose, about their theories, about how this won't work or why it may not be effective or what it may do or affect people in a community or whatever. I am here, Mr. Chairman, not to talk about theories or not to talk about speculation, but to talk about what this particular program has done, in fact, in Orange County, California. My congressional district is entirely encompassed within the County of Orange in California. There are five other Members of this body whose congressional districts are either entirely within Orange County, California, or partially within Orange County, California, and two jurisdictions within that county, both the Orange County sheriff's department and the police at the city of Costa Mesa, California, have been engaged in this program. I would like to read from a press release that was issued from the Office of Sheriff-Coroner Mike Carona. This press release was issued just last month relative to the effectiveness of the program that is the subject of the lady from Virginia's amendment. It says, ``Since the inception of Orange County Sheriff Michael Carona's cross-designation program in January 2007, deputies have increased the number of immigration holds by more than 400 percent, from approximately 350 to over 1,600. Of this amount, more than 1,000 of the undocumented individuals who were booked into Orange County jail were charged with felony law violations, and over 100 were known gang members.'' Now, Mr. Chairman, this is fact, that since the Orange County sheriff's department participated in this program and had its deputies trained on how to enforce our illegal immigration laws, they have taken off the street 1,600 illegal aliens, 1,000 of whom were felons. So because of this program, there are 1,000 fewer illegal immigrant felons walking the streets in Orange County, California. That is not theory. That is not conjecture. That is actually fact. Also, in the city of Costa Mesa, which I do not represent, but is represented by Congressman Rohrabacher, but it's adjacent to my district, they've recently trained their officers in enforcing immigration laws, and between March and May of 2007, they identified and placed containers on 146 illegal immigrants in the city jail, and of this amount, 53 had committed felonies. Now, this is in addition to the 1,000 felons that I talked about before, because it's a separate jurisdiction, a separate city police force dealing with their jurisdiction within the County of Orange. So, Mr. Chairman, this program is effective, and I know some people who are opposed to this amendment have said that somehow it's going to disrupt community relations or something like that. I can tell you that the Orange County sheriff's office has been very, very involved in the community generally, broadly in Orange County, both in ethnic communities and in regular communities, and very involved in stopping drugs. Because what a lot of people are interested in, particularly in some lower-income communities, is getting the drug dealers and getting the problems that drugs create out of their community. That's what they're interested in. They're not necessarily interested in protecting felons or in making sure that somehow when we have illegal alien felons that we handicap or restrict the ability of local law enforcement to find those people, identify them and bring them to justice and eventually out of this country. So, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment from the lady from Virginia, and I support it on the basis of actual, real experience that has happened in my county; and, that we know of, well over 1,000 felons who are no longer on the street.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. If I can refer to the gentleman, I believe I heard, and maybe we can sort this out, but I think that if you include the supplementals on both sides, that we went from $34.2 billion to $39.2 billion, which would be a 15.2 percent increase, perhaps not the 17 I said earlier, but in either event, frankly, whether it's 17 percent, 15 percent or the 13.6, if you leave both of the supplementals out, it's a lot of money. It's billions and billions and billions of dollars of increase. Some of that increase is a lot more than inflation, multiple times more than inflation, and it's a lot more than taking the growth in inflation and the growth in population and put it together. Most importantly, it's a lot more than personal income growth. That's something we need to look at, as we are looking at all these appropriations and all of these spending bills. Because if we increase spending faster than people's incomes are increasing in America, it is unsustainable over time unless you continue to take more and more and more of their hard-earned money away from them. Now, I know that's what many of you on the other side of the aisle want to do. But, A, we don't; and, B, even if you want to do it, eventually you'll run out of space. Eventually, you'll take it all if you increase at this kind of level. Once again, this amendment does not ask anybody to cut anything. It simply tells this one element, this one part of the bureaucracy in Homeland Security to do, get by and exist on the same amount of money that you had last year. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify again that the gentleman from North Carolina just said that this amendment proposed by Ms. Foxx cuts $1.24 million from the President's request. It is true that, in fact, it proposes to spend less on the Office of General Counsel, which is the attorneys, than what the President has proposed. But that does not make it a cut. Because what it proposes to do is leave the spending for the Office of General Counsel, for the attorneys, in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management at exactly the same level they had last year. I really have a hard time understanding how it is always a cut when it is less of an increase than you want it to be, or than somebody wants it to be, in this case, I suppose, than the President wants it to be. But we are not looking at this as Republican spending or Democratic spending, we are looking at it as spending. The reason, I am not sure that it's been made quite as clear as perhaps it ought to be, that in the Democrats' budget that you all passed a month or so ago, where you moved towards a balanced budget, and I take you at your word that it's your intention to, at some point, get to a balanced budget, but you did it by enacting, proposing, I guess it's the second largest tax increase in American history, which means that as you increase spending on things, you intend to then balance the budget by increasing taxes. That is clearly what you are going to do. That is what your budget does, and you have made it very clear through your PAYGO provisions what you intend to do. When you increase spending, going to balance the budget will increase taxes. So with this amendment and with every other amendment we are looking at, we are saying here that we are not going to increase spending in the Office of General Counsel by $1.2 million. That is $1.2 million of additional spending that will not occur if this amendment passes. But that means it is $1.2 million of taxes that you all won't raise if this amendment passes. Now that works on this amendment, it works on various other amendments that will be coming up through the evening. So it's more than just an academic exercise about whether or not a certain department's budget should be increased. It, in fact, affects, Mr. Chairman, people at home today now watching this. Is this $1.2 million that you want to see your taxes increase to spend? I think not. I think most of the people on this side believe not; and that is really what we're talking about, because if you say, as you did in your budget, that you will increase whatever taxes you need to to get to a balanced budget, then this $1.2 million is $1.2 million of money that you will take out of Americans' pockets that you're not taking now. And it's really more than that, because if this were to go in, then next year there's a new base, and it's a higher base, and if you increase it another 10 percent beyond that, then it's another $1.22 million; and if you increase it again, it's another $1.44 million. And it goes on and on, and so that over a 5-year period this $1.2 million magically turns into about $6 million or so of people's money that gets spent, and which you will propose, undoubtedly, to increase taxes to cover so that you can balance the budget. We can balance this budget, and we can balance it without taking any more money out of Americans' pockets. And we can balance it by passing amendments like this and simply asking government to live with the money they have now. This is not a cut, just live with the money you have now. Can't this General Counsel's Office, can't these attorneys operate for another year on the same amount of money that they got last year? I think they can.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I too want to comment on some of the comments made by the Appropriations Committee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin. There are two things we are doing here. One was just very eloquently presented by the gentleman from Arizona. We are trying to say and trying to insist that when these projects, when these earmarks, when these sorts of things appear in these bills, that there is sunshine, that people know what they are, that they can see them and that they are subject to an up-and-down vote, rather than these big slush funds that appear in this bill and others as they are currently constructed. The other thing we are trying to do here is very simple, and that is saving the taxpayers $21 billion. There is $21 billion more that has been proposed to spend in the Democrats' appropriations bills than what the President proposed to spend. Now, I might add that I am one of the 160 people who voted for a budget to spend $20 billion less than the President has proposed. It is not like what the President proposed was a flat budget. It is not like the President proposed a budget that didn't increase spending; it did. But what you have done is taken the President's proposals for spending increases, accepted all that, and added to it in most cases. I think it is very interesting that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee seems so surprised that the amendments that some of us are offering, including the one that I offered just about an hour or so ago, that these were reducing spending that was actually proposed by the administration. It may come as a surprise to people on the other side of the aisle, but we don't really care who proposed it, whether the President proposed it, a Democrat proposed it or a Republican proposed it. If it is spending more money than we believe should be spent, if it is increasing spending that increases the deficit, if it is further putting pressure, further trying to create a reason to enact the largest tax increase in American history that you all want to do, then we are going to want to stop it. And that is what we are doing. Now, there was a comment also made by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that there were 120 amendments, I believe he said, on this bill. We are talking about a lot money. I would bet there are a lot more than 120 earmarks that get put in here by the time things are done. I know there is at least $21 billion of more spending in all of these appropriations bills, and specifically on this bill itself a nearly $5 billion increase in spending over last year. So, for $5 billion and countless thousands of earmarks, 120 amendments is not a problem. It may be many more than that. It could take many more than that. These are big issues. These are important things. This is about whether we are going to start to arrest spending where we can, or whether we are going to let it continue to grow and grow and grow. Whether we are going to allow Americans to keep at least the amount of their own money that they keep now, or whether this government is going to continue to tax them and tax them and take more of it. If it is 120 amendments or 240 amendments or 480 amendments, we will stand here and we stand ready to do that. I would hope that the message would get across at some point to the other side of the aisle that what they are doing is not right, and that these amendments are processes by which we are getting to what is right, which is not increasing spending on everything, not increasing all of these things and trying to keep it under control and making sure that when we do spend the taxpayers' money, we are up front about what it is, about who requested it and why. And that people have an opportunity to challenge that request. Mr. Chairman, we have begun some amendments and we have a lot more. This is not a joke. This is not silly, this is not something that we don't believe in. This is something we believe in very deeply, and it is something that is important and that's why we are engaged in this fight and will continue to be engaged in this fight.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. To the gentleman from North Carolina, just to clarify again on these numbers, we agreed that it's $36.3 billion in this bill, and the number you threw out, $34.2 billion, I believe, was the President's budget proposal for this, and that the prior year enacted, 2007 enacted, was $31.9 billion. Do you have different numbers on that?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 43 at the desk.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I am not aware of what the printing error is.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, the bill that we have before us today would increase spending. When coupled with the supplemental bill that the President just signed a few weeks back, would increase spending in the area of homeland security by nearly 17 percent. Now, perhaps people on the other side of the aisle have not noticed, but we have a deficit, a very large deficit in this country. And we still are adding to that deficit every year. Now, I think Members on the other side of the aisle have noticed this because they have talked about their PAYGO and other principles, that we won't be increasing spending without some way to pay for this. However, with this appropriations bill we are doing exactly that. We are increasing spending by billions of dollars, by 17 percent over last year's level, without paying for it in any way, without reducing spending anywhere else, which means that we are adding to the deficit because of the spending, the additional spending that is in this bill. Let me just give you a sense of what a 17 percent increase is. If someone outside of this building in the world is making $15 an hour, they would have to get a raise this year to $17.55 an hour in order for their income to keep pace with the spending increase in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that most of the people out there making $15 an hour, or any number you want, are not likely to see their bosses come in and say we want to give you a raise of 17 percent from $15 an hour to $17.55 an hour, not something that they are likely to see. But yet to keep and sustain this level of increase in spending, that's exactly what would have to happen or else we just take more and more and more money out of individuals' pockets so we can spend it here. Now, I'm sure that people on the other side in support of this bill are going to start to talk about how important this bill is to homeland security. Okay. We will have that debate over the next couple of days about what is in this bill, but what this amendment does is deal purely with bureaucracy. We're not dealing here with any program. We're not dealing here with officers in the field. We're not dealing here with equipment that's being used or computers or anything else for homeland security. What this amendment says is simply that the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, the office of the Secretary, purely bureaucracy, gave the Secretary of Homeland Security and the people in that person's office, right now this bill gives them an 11 percent increase, when we're trying to get a deficit down, when we want to, at least some of us do, keep taxes low. What this bill says is you ought to be able to get by on what you had last year. It is not even proposing that we cut the spending of this bureaucracy, not even proposing that we take the Secretary's office and just their bureaucracy in there and cut it, but simply saying get by on the same amount of money you did last year. Now, how many people in America do that every day but somehow the bureaucracy in Homeland Security can't do that? And by doing that, Mr. Chairman, this amendment saves $10 million. Now, maybe in a $3 trillion budget it doesn't sound like much, but $10 million is still a lot of money. It's a lot of money to everybody out there. It's lot of money to me. It's a lot of money to you. And $10 million and $10 million and $10 million and we will eventually get our spending down, and that, Mr. Chairman, is how we are going to eliminate this budget deficit and that's how we're going to do it without having the largest increase in taxes in American history, which the other side has proposed to do. And what is that tax increase for? It's for things like this, for things like taking a bureaucracy of people, sitting around doing phone calls and paper and saying we're going to give you an 11 percent raise. We should not be doing that, not in this environment and not in this bill. So, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask that Members support this amendment, not feed the bureaucracy further and save the taxpayers $10 million.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman from New York said that there were two types of amendments, one that tried to do something that you believe in and others that make statements. I would like to assure the gentleman from New York that I believe in this amendment, and I think a lot of people on this side of the aisle believe in this amendment because we believe that we need to start controlling costs in this government. And is this amendment all by itself going to do that? No, of course not, but it will begin the process of doing that, and in combination with a lot of other amendments like it, yes, it will start to control the cost of government, and, yes, I firmly believe in what this amendment is about, in spite of what the gentleman from New York suggested. The gentleman from North Carolina talked about numbers, and perhaps my numbers are incorrect, but this bill is now at $36.254 billion over and enacted last year $31.905 billion which is a 13.6 percent increase.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from Texas. To the gentleman from North Carolina, this is something I guess we'll probably need to work out as we go along because I'm not looking at increase over a baseline. We're looking at increase over actual enacted last year, and maybe we can compare notes. But my notes show that that actual last year was $31.905 billion, and then there was the supplemental which has been added on top of this bill itself. But in any event, one other thing the gentleman from North Carolina alluded to was that this amendment proposes to cut spending in this area in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management. I want to make that clear. This is a definitional thing which we often have problems with in this House and in this building. What this amendment proposes to do is to leave the budget for the Office of Secretary and Executive Management equal to what it was in the prior fiscal year. That is not a cut. If you have $10 and I give you $10, I take away $10, give you back $10, that is not a cut. That is the same amount of money you had before. What this does do is it prevents the 11 percent increase that is in this bill. So let's make it very clear in vernacular that if I make $10 an hour and I want to make $11, if somebody gives me a raise to $10.50, it is still a raise; it is not a cut. And that's what is going on here. We are not proposing to cut this office. We are merely proposing to tell them, do continue your operations on the same amount of money that you did last year. I don't think that is a great leap to ask of what is clearly an element of the bureaucracy, in spite of the gentleman from North Carolina's admonitions that it is not.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, later today we will have a budget on this floor proposed by the Democratic majority which is guaranteed to raise taxes by about $200 billion. Now, that budget will also increase spending by about $200 billion over and above the budget that the President proposed. Do we think that those two numbers are the same by coincidence? No. And it's not an increase in spending by $200 billion, it's an increase over the increase proposed by the President by $200 billion. This is not a tax increase that we need to have. This is a tax increase that they want to have because they want to spend a lot more money than we are already spending, and we are already spending too much.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate and listening to the arguments on the Democratic side of the aisle, and I am waiting for David Copperfield to show up as a member of their Budget Committee because what they are doing is magic. They are over here bragging about all of the additional money they are spending. And bragging, which they are, and bragging that they are balancing the budget, which they say they are, but then saying they are not raising taxes. Which they are. This budget contains over $200 billion in tax increases. That is about $1,000 for every taxpayer in America. And oddly enough, isn't it strange that it also contains about $200 billion in additional spending over the President's proposed budget. So they want to raise Americans' taxes by $1,000 a taxpayer so they can spend it on new spending. Make no mistake about it, a vote for this budget is a vote for at least the second largest tax increase in American history, if not the largest.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, we learned this week that in April of this year, the Federal Government received more tax revenue in that month than in any month ever in the history of the Republic. It results in an over 11 percent increase in revenue to the government this year, on top of over an 11 percent increase last year and an almost 15 percent increase the year before that. But, yet, the budget that the Democrats propose includes the largest tax increase in American history as they continue to impose tax increase after tax increase after tax increase. The question is, why? When Federal Government revenues have increased over 37 percent in the last 3 years, why do we want to increase spending by 40 percent in 3 years, 50 percent, 60 percent? Why? We should not be confiscating more money from the people in order to increase government. We should be allowing the people to keep more of their own money so that the economy can continue to grow.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to all of this debate, and I guess what I don't really understand is, why? I mean, why the Democrats here on the other side of the aisle want to oppose this motion to instruct. I mean, do you want to raid the Social Security surplus? Do you like telling people that they are paying money for their own Social Security and retirement and then taking it and using it for other things? Do you like that? Do you want to do that? I mean, do you want to enact the biggest tax increase in American history? Do you want really to tax people more on capital gains and dividends when over 50 percent of Americans now own some sort of stock? Do you want to go back to penalizing married couples and having them pay more taxes after they get married than two people would when they were single? Do you really want to reduce the child care tax credit? Do you want to stifle economic growth? I know some of you say you don't think that these tax cuts caused this economic growth. Let's assume they didn't cause it all. It can't be a coincidence that since the tax reductions went into place, we have had enormous economic growth, enormous job growth and enormous revenue growth to the Federal Government. Do you really want to do all that? Do you really want to pass the largest tax increase in American history; and for what? So you can raise spending a lot over the next 5 years because if you just didn't increase spending, you could do all of this. You could allow Americans to keep their own money. But no, you want to take their money from them and spend it on your priorities. Now I guess that is what you want to do. I still don't understand it. I don't understand why the government having money is so much more a priority, but I guess it is because you look at all money as the government's, and you allow people to keep some. We look at money as belonging to the people who earned it, and we allow the government to take that which is necessary. But understand that if all you did was keep spending level or increase it a little bit over the next 5 years, then you wouldn't have to raise taxes and then you wouldn't have to raid the Social Security surplus. But apparently that is what you want to do.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

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

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