John Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. King, one second, before you leave, figures, we talk about the progress we have made on this budget so far. The 12-month budget deficit, the last 12 months, is $188 billion. Remember, some time ago, we were talking about nearly half a trillion dollars. That $188 billion is down 38 percent as a rolling 12-month budget deficit from what it was a year ago. For 22 straight months now, the budget deficit has declined by about 18 percent, year on year. There is a lot of progress happening on this budget deficit because of the growth in the economy, because of those tax cuts, and because we, the prior couple of budgets, were beginning to start to control spending. It is something we haven't done, well, frankly, a lot, lately. But we are starting to in the last couple of years. Isn't that right, Mr. King?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia. And I would just like to say to everyone who is watching and listening, you have been listening for the last hour to members of the Republican Study Committee. You will be hearing a lot from us because we want to watch out for your money and your interests, not the government and the government's interests. To close things I would like to yield to another new Member of Congress, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona. And now from the great desert Southwest to the South, I yield to Dr. Gingrey, the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. Wow, what a shock. The other side says they are tax cuts for the rich, and they are not, unless making under $50,000 makes you rich. Now if we can go to the other side of the country, I yield to a great defender of taxpayers and taxpayers' rights, Mr. Jeff Flake, the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. As you say, one of the great differences between us and them, we talked about it being your money, their money, the People's money, the taxpayers' money. Your money, watching on television, they talk about it like it is their money, like it is the government's money.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman very much. This is a press release. It doesn't matter what press release it is, it is just a press release. Which means, it says something, argues a position on an issue, and it is on a piece of paper, but it doesn't actually do anything. It just talks about things. What is before us, this bill, is like a press release. It makes an argument, it is on a piece of paper, but doesn't really do anything. I heard everyone on the other side of the aisle here talk about how people can't afford to pay for college. Well, this bill doesn't help people pay for college. It claims to help them reduce their interest rate once they are college graduates, after they are out of college, but it certainly doesn't help you pay for college while you are there. I have also heard the argument that it cuts the rate for student loans in half, and in fact it does: For 6 months, 5 years from now. For 6 months, 5 years from now, it cuts the rate in half, but the rest of the time the rate is either the same as it is now or somewhere in between those two. So let's not say that it cuts it in half. And, to its credit, the bill is cost neutral. Now, cost neutral, it doesn't cost the government anything because although it cuts interest rates to some degree, it also raises or reduces subsidies on fees. So it is like I give you a dollar with less interest rate and then I take that dollar out of your other pocket with less fees. If it doesn't cost anything, net, how is it supposed to help someone, net, pay for the program? And because, perhaps, some of the loan providers could choose to absorb some of these fees if they did that, then it would likely result in less student loans. You know, this is not a bill, it is a press release. Now, it is an issue we ought to be dealing with, because college tuition, I have two kids in college, has gone up four times the rate of inflation. But this is not the solution. This is merely talk and press and not substance.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I spent 25 years in the retail car business, so I have done my share of negotiating. There is a golden rule of negotiating to buy something that if you want to get the best price, you have to be willing to say, No, I won't buy it. So if the government negotiates and says, No, I won't buy it, when they say no, which they will say a lot or have to say a lot to get a good price, then that means that seniors will be denied various drugs, and that is what has happened in the VA. If they take the other course and decide they are not going to say no, then they are not negotiating; they are price setting. And when they set prices, they will either be too low and people won't get what they need, or they will be too high and we will be wasting money. Mr. Speaker, this is a solution that won't work to a problem that does not exist.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, two plus two does not equal six, but if I were to assume that it did, I could take care of the budget. Easy. PAYGO assumes that when you increase taxes, revenue goes up, and when you lower tax rates, revenue goes down. But history shows that that is not what happens, because there are economic factors, and people change behavior. Since the tax cut-rate cuts of 2003, revenue has been up every year, and in 2 of the last 3 years has been up by double digits. Two plus two does not equal six. PAYGO does not equal fiscal responsibility. What PAYGO does equal is tax increases that will hurt the economy and will not raise revenue and will not help the deficit.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, born on April 24th, 1921 in Hawthorne, California, Theodore (``Ted'') Ralph Williams was delivered into a family divided by divorce and early hardships. Fortunately, the happiest years of his youth were spent with his mother, step-father and siblings on a 35-acre citrus nursery and farm which skirted the eastern border of the giant Irvine Ranch in Orange County, California. It was on the farm where Williams developed the strong work ethic and key survival skills which have served him so well over the course of his life. Following the death of his beloved step-father in 1935 and his family's ensuing financial challenges, Ted Williams left Tustin High School during his senior year and enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. On January 18, 1940, he was sworn in as a ``Boot Marine'' and immediately deployed to the Philippine Islands where he was stationed in the Manila area near Clark Field, Cavite and Mariveles, part of the 4th Marine Regiment and home port to the 16th Naval District Fleet. Less than a year later, on December 7th, 1942, the United States was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. The very next day, the Japanese attacked the Philippines; and Williams found himself cut-off from the rest of the world. Alone, hungry and wounded, Williams and his military comrades waged a brave three-month fight against the enemy yet, ultimately, were forced to join a massive surrender--and the infamous Bataan Death March. For a week, more than 75,000 American prisoners marched 160 kilometers in the searing April heat toward primitive prison camps. Along the way, Williams and his fellow soldiers were aided by Filipino civilians, mostly women and children, who heroically provided water and food to the survivors of the march. Ultimately however, more than 10,000 soldiers died at the hands of the enemy through torture, disease, starvation and murder. Surviving the march yet in failing health, Williams was eventually sent to The Zero Ward at Bilibid, a dilapidated prison functioning as a crude hospital. There he recovered from amebic dysentery only to suffer a host of new injuries brought-on by harsh prison labor that lasted for nearly two years. In June 1944, he was sent to a prison camp in the north at Cabanatuan where he was assigned to the torturous runway construction crew. A month later, Williams was shipped via prisoner boat transport (known as Hell Ships) to Camp 17 in Kyushu, Japan, where he served as a slave laborer in a coal mine, followed by time served at Camp 1 in Fukuoka, Japan. On August 25th, 1945, just weeks after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Williams and his fellow POWs were released by their captors. Discharged from the Marine Corps in 1946, Williams returned to Orange County and married Dolores Wallace, whom he later divorced. After a series of odd jobs, Williams built a steady career with Sears in Southern California. In 1972, he moved to Santa Ana, where he met and married Lillian May Phipps, his travel companion and fellow adventurer. It was Lillian who brought Williams back to the Philippines to retrace his POW experiences, a trip Williams has since made 21 times. In February of 1979, Williams underwent open heart surgery and, as part of his physical and emotional recovery, began work on ``Rogues of Bataan,'' an autobiographical account of the Bataan Death March. Just one year later, Lillian died from liver cancer. Inspired by his late wife's kind and generous heart, Williams embarked on a series of charitable efforts including the funding of an orphanage in Mexico and the founding of TERI, Inc. (Training, Education and Research Institute) in Oceanside, CA, a private nonprofit agency providing residential care, education, job training, employment, and other programs and services for people with all sorts of developmental disabilities and special needs. Upon a return trip to the Philippines with other survivors of the Bataan Death March, Williams spearheaded the effort to build, equip and staff an elementary school on the Philippine Island of Corregidor. During this period in his life, Williams returned to his writing and completed ``Rogues of Bataan,'' which was first published in 1999 and has since been re-released with all proceeds benefiting TERI, Inc. In 2003, Williams embarked on the creation of the Corregidor School Fund which has since built and furnished the Llamas Memorial Institute in Mariveles, Bataan, Philippines, an educational library which was officially dedicated on July 4, 2006. In recognition of his charitable works, community service and humanitarian efforts to the Filipino people, Ted Williams was placed on the prestigious ``Perpetual Honor Roll'' for the Order of the Knights of Rizal (as chartered by the Philippine government) on March 16, 2006. Now, at age 85 and in failing health, Ted Williams is worthy of his own special recognition by the United States of America. This native son of Southern California is a true American Hero, a passionate patriot and a caring and humble community servant.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House for less than a year, not a very long time, but it is long enough to know that this is real reform. In the first 90 days after I was elected to this House, I received 70, that is 7-0, requests for various earmarks. A whole lot of those, frankly, were not appropriate; whether there wasn't a Federal nexus, whether there wasn't a public benefit, for whatever reason, they weren't appropriate. Now, I submitted seven of those 70 for consideration by the Appropriations Committee, and I have made very public what those seven were. Because if we are going to spend taxpayer money, we ought to be able to justify it and to stand behind what we are doing, why we are doing it, and who is doing it. And that is what this does. It simply says if we are going to spend the taxpayers' money in this way, and there is nothing inappropriate if there is a Federal nexus, et cetera, about Members spending money on things that have a Federal nexus and are appropriate and have a public good in their district. There is nothing wrong with that process. But you should be able to shine the light of day on it, to stand behind it, to say this is what I am doing and this is why I am doing it and this is who is doing it. And that is what this does. Now, you could sit there as some of our friends on the other side of the aisle want to do and try to indicate everything that is inappropriate. But isn't it better if we just simply say, here it is and here is the name, so that the person doing it, if they know that there is anything there, then they won't come forward with it. Now, I have to tell you this is unlikely to save any money, unlikely to reduce spending, but what it will do is I think it will add greatly to what we do spend being spent better.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa, and I am going to give you three reasons why we should support this amendment. First is that it is an expensive, unfunded mandate on local governments. The county in which I live, Orange County, California, very diverse county, in the last cycle spent $600,000 on bilingual ballots when only seven-tenths of a percent, seven-tenths of a percent of the ballots requested were multilingual or bilingual ballots. Secondly, the current law is discriminatory. In Orange County, California, we are required under the Voting Rights Act to print ballots in five languages, but yet in the school district where my kids went to school, which is only one city out of 35 cities in Orange County, there are 83 different languages spoken at home. So what about those other 78 language speakers? Aren't we discriminating against them by not putting out ballots in their languages, too? Now, I happen to think it would be less discriminatory if they were only in English, because then everyone would have the same opportunity to understand the ballot as everyone else. But the point of this amendment is that that is for the county to decide. Some counties may not have 83 different languages, while others do. That is for them to decide. And, third, I think it is interesting that the chairman brought up Chris Norby, a supervisor in Orange County, as being in opposition to this amendment. Chris Norby is actually very strongly in favor of this amendment. The issue that was discussed was the complexity of ballot initiatives. Now, ballot initiatives, and California is kind of the hotbed of those things, and I personally have been involved in drafting them, but they are complex and they are complex to translate. That is the point.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding. Let me make it clear. What this amendment does, which I support, is very simple. There is a Federal law that says you may not prohibit, it does not require you do it, but you may not prohibit local law enforcement officials from cooperating on immigration issues. This amendment simply says you cannot use Federal funds to violate Federal law. Pretty simple. Pretty logical. Do not use Federal funds to violate existing Federal law. You do not have to make them, but do not prohibit your law enforcement from cooperating on immigration issues. We should pass this amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank my colleague from California, Chairman Thomas, for yielding me this time. Ladies and gentlemen, I, like the majority of this House, would support full repeal of the estate tax, but that, as Chairman Thomas explained, has not passed the Senate. So this is a compromise proposal, but one which I fully support, and for three reasons I will give today: one is facts, second is economics, and the third is equity. First of all, facts: people on the other side this afternoon have said that 7,500 people will benefit from this reduction in the death tax and that the tax they will not pay, I think it was $750 billion over 10 years. If you do the math on that, Mr. Speaker, you will find that that is $100 million per family. Now, that is very odd, since families with as small as $1 million of a total taxable estate will be relieved from tax under this bill. So facts are not what they say. The facts are hundreds of thousands, hundreds of thousands of families over the next 10 years will be relieved from paying tax on death under this compromise proposal. Second, economics. We have seen that when we reduce the capital gains tax, the economy improved, and revenue to the government actually increased. The same thing will happen here. People are out there with lead trusts, with remainder trusts, with family limited partnerships and all kinds of things that do not generate benefit for this economy but are done simply so they can try to keep a house or a business or farm in their family, they won't have to do that. Mr. Speaker, 99.7 percent of the families in America will not have to do that under this proposal. The third is equity. Right now under the death tax as it exists, some people can leave their house to their children; some people can't. Some people can leave their farm to their children; some others can't. Some people can leave their business to their children; and some other people can't. Mr. Speaker, we should not have a tax policy that says to some people what you have worked for and earned in your life you may leave to your children, and other people can't do that. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 19, I was in California attending my son's graduation from high school. I arranged ahead of time to be granted an official leave of absence from the House on Monday, June 19th. Through a misunderstanding, I was granted a leave for the entire week. I want the House to know that I am present and voting on Tuesday, June 20th and the balance of the week.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. You know, Mr. Chairman, there are some things we know about this budget proposal and some things that we don't know. We know that it raises taxes. We know that it raises taxes by a bunch. We know that it is about $100 billion a year, or half a trillion dollars over 5 years; that it raises taxes. What we don't really know is what taxes and for how much. Now, the gentlemen across the aisle have indicated that it is their intention to raise taxes on those making $200,000 or more.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I would like to finish my remarks at this time, if I could, thank you. How you are going to tax people with $200,000 or more income? What rate are you going to go to to raise this kind of money? So we know it is going to tax a lot. We don't know exactly how. We also don't know, because we don't know exactly how, what effect that is going to have on the economy. We can talk a lot about tax increases and so forth, but the fact is that since the tax decreases of 2003, revenue to this government has increased substantially. We are tracking nearly a 12 percent increase this year after a 15 percent increase last year, and the rate since 2003 of increased revenues to the government is substantially higher after the tax rate reduction of 2003 than it was after the tax increases of the early 1990s. You might find this hard to believe, but that is the way economics works. Sometimes when a business lowers the price of a product, people buy more of it and they actually make more money. What has happened here is exactly that. We have lowered taxes, and the economy has increased, the economy has grown, and more total dollars are coming into the Federal Government. So we know taxes will be increased, but we don't know how much this is going to depress the economy. But it will. Therefore, even though you may increase taxes at the rate of $100 billion a year, you will not see $100 billion a year revenue, because we know also the computations show that the tax decreases we have had already actually resulted in increased revenue. The other thing we know that it does is it spends more money. The gentleman from Virginia outlined a bunch of things, most of which sounded to me as though it was discretionary spending increases, I believe, which means that if I am doing the math correctly, we are looking at discretionary spending increases of about 7 percent just in one year, 7 percent every year, which, if you keep that going with the entitlement increases which are already there, and there is no entitlement reform to deal with those, it is so perplexing to me that you introduce a budget on the basis of it being fiscally responsible and balancing, and then you propose to increase spending along the way, and increase spending by as much as 7 percent a year on discretionary spending. That is not how you balance budgets. That is not how you get things back in line, by increasing spending. Also, there was a discussion of smoke and mirrors. Well, the other thing that was included in the committee's budget was a reserve for natural disasters, which I believe you now have added to your budget here just recently, but there is an additional reserve we have for the war, the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, you may not agree with that war, and that is not the issue we are discussing today, but even if you were to terminate, decide you were going to immediately withdraw from both Iraq and Afghanistan, there will be additional supplemental expenditures going into next year even to do that. So by not including that, you are not including some additional spending, which is going to happen and is not included in your budget which is included in the committee's budget. So, in summary, I think we are looking at higher taxes, less economic growth, more spending, and I would argue, when computed properly, higher deficits.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Reclaiming my time, it is funny. If I am taxing you at 15 percent and then I tax you at 30 percent, I would think that most people would think that was an increase. I don't know how anyone would say that is not an increase. Four is more than three. Five is more than four. Thirty percent is more than 15 percent. Twenty percent is more than 15 percent. So you can call it anything you like, but it is in fact a tax increase. So my question is for you, which you can answer later, but have you done any computations as to how you are going to tax?

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I tried to keep track on my paper here of how many times the opposition to this budget proposal used the word ``cut,'' and I ran off the edge of the page. It is 30- something or 40-something times they used the word ``cut.'' The truth is, this budget that is before you increases spending every single year. Let me repeat that. This budget increases spending every single year. Increasing is not a cut. When you go from three to four, that is not a cut. It does not increase spending as much as the current rate of increase, which is unsustainable over time, which is why this is such a responsible budget. It also does not increase taxes and does not depress the economy in the way an increase of taxes would do, but it does balance this budget in 5 years in the only way we know we can do it; without smoke and mirrors, without any games, by simply spending within our means.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, what I hear here and what I see here are four things: tax, spend, smoke, and mirrors. Tax. We have seen, we have heard half a trillion dollars over 5 years, massive tax increase as yet not clearly defined, but a massive tax increase nonetheless. Spend. Spending, that is, nearly a 7 percent increase in discretionary spending, that sort of spending which is unsustainable over time without constantly accelerating tax increases. So spending supposedly as the way to get us out of the deficit. Smoke. Smoke to hide those things which are not addressed in the budget, such as the spending necessary for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to deal with the ever escalating entitlement spending that we have going forth. And mirrors used to make all of this look like somehow it is going to reduce the deficit over time, which I assure you, with the reduction to the economic growth that this will do and the additional spending that is in here and the lack of reform on any of that spending, I absolutely assure you, reducing the deficit is one thing this budget will not do.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Sir, I am only taking a minute and a half. You can respond at that time, because I have several other questions. Tell them who you are going to raise it on, what rates they are going to be and what effect those are going to have on the economy. Again, level with the American people on whether or not the spending that you have added to this thing increases the deficit or not, and level with the American people about whether or not you have accounted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are still going on, and level with the American people about whether or not you have included any reform of the entitlement programs that will soon eat up two-thirds of our entire Federal revenues and eventually eat up 100 percent of our Federal revenues; and level with the American people that that tax cut that the President just signed today, that increased time of those tax rates, has increased the economy in the United States and resulted in more revenue to the Federal Government and thereby reduced the deficit.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, if this budget levels with the American people, then level with the American people and tell them what taxes you are going to raise. Tell them who you are going to raise it on, tell them how much you are going to raise it.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I have some familiarity with the project, since it is located in the district which I have the privilege to represent. Water is an issue. It is an issue in the West; it is an issue in California. We will probably be dealing this week and over the next few weeks and perhaps months with some of the issues of a shortage of various energy projects. We can avoid shortages in water if we work on it early, if we get on some of these projects now. What this project does, as both the previous speakers indicated, is it is not just something that is good for the district I represent or the area I represent, but is in fact a test project for this new type of desalinization, where you are getting the water, rather than directly out of the ocean on the coast, you are actually bringing the water out underneath the sand, and then back to a desalinization plant, which is off the coast. That is why it does not have the negative environmental impacts putting a plant directly on the coast right against the water would be. But, also, the sand itself has the effect, we believe, of filtering this water on its way to the desalinization plant, which both reduces the cost, reduces the waste that is created in desalinization, and possibly, we believe, makes the project considerably more efficient and therefore cheaper. So what this project, if it is successful, will do is it will create desalinization that will be both less impactful on the environment, result in a higher yield of usable water, and be cheaper along the way. So something that is good for all sides. The Federal involvement here would only be 25 percent of the entire project, as 75 percent of the cost is being carried by local public agencies. So I appreciate the support on both sides of the aisle for this project and would urge its passage.

Mr. CAMPBELL of California

Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I have to say the course of this budget debate is somewhat perplexing. My friends on the other side of the aisle here, the Democrats, are consistently railing about the deficit and the evils of the deficit and how bad the deficit is and how big the deficit is, and I confess that I concur. I have problems with this deficit and that we ought to be reducing this deficit. But it seems like their solution to reducing the deficit is to spend more money. My friends, this is like saying that we have a boat and our boat is sinking, and the way to fix the boat is to punch holes in the bottom of it. Spending more money does not reduce the deficit. You don't need to be a CPA to know that. You only need second grade math to know that. Spending more money does not reduce the deficit. In the Budget Committee the vast majority of the amendments to the budget offered by the Democrat side were amendments that spent more money. Now, to be fair, they do propose to close the deficit by raising taxes, and that is their argument and their proposal. But they claim that the tax rate cuts, and I want to point out that they were tax rate cuts, that happened in 2003 have increased the deficit. Except, since those tax rate cuts went into place, the income to the Federal Government, the revenue coming into the Federal Government has increased by an average of nearly 7 percent a year because tax rate cuts stimulate the economy, and tax rate cuts, these particular tax rate cuts, allowed capital to move to where it is best used and it resulted in more revenue. So you can't say that tax rate cuts have worsened the deficit when the revenue has gone up by higher than historic averages since the rates were cut. Now, this budget that is before us increases spending. That is another thing. You are hearing about all the cuts in this budget and, sure, some things go up and some things go down. But overall it increases spending by 3\1/2\ percent. My friends, that is not a cut. An increase of 3\1/2\ percent is not a cut. It spends $2.7 trillion. That ought to be enough to make things work around here, you would think. And it reduces the deficit because the revenue by this stimulated increased economy will go up by more than that 3\1/2\ percent. So this budget does not cut spending. It increases it. It does not increase the deficit. It reduces it. And it does not raise taxes. It maintains the stimulative tax policy that currently exists in our economy.