John Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. So it is under construction.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Reclaiming my time, but I would ask the gentleman, have all the funds for this, the construction of this museum been raised? And I would yield.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is $1 million of the public's money going to a museum that doesn't currently exist, that is not currently under construction, and the gentleman from Massachusetts can't tell me if it's even fully funded. I mean, if you don't have enough, if there isn't enough money to build it, it may never be built. It may never be funded. So where is this million dollars going to go and what is it going to go for? The gentleman pointed out that most of this museum, or so far they've been doing this raised on private funds. That's great. That's very admirable. That's outstanding. That's the way local museums and stuff should be done. I support them. I'm sure he does as well, and that's the way that funding should be. And so, should the taxpayers from California and Texas and Louisiana and every place else put their tax money towards subsidizing a privately funded museum in Massachusetts no matter how admirable the message that that museum may be? And I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. May I ask how much time I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, you know, the fiscal and financial status of this country is at an unprecedented low. We will have a deficit this year of probably over $2 trillion. President Obama's budget projects a deficit of $1 trillion a year as far as the eye can see. Of the million dollars that will go to this museum that doesn't exist and may never exist, $460,000 of that will be borrowed. Much of that money will be borrowed from people in China and India and other places. And I guess I would ask, Mr. Chairman, in this time of great fiscal strain, in this time when people are losing their jobs, in this time when we have a gigantic deficit, gigantic debt, borrowing money from all around the world, and a Congress and a President who seem to be unwilling or unable to stop spending and spending and spending, isn't at least this, can't we at least not spend $1 million on something that doesn't even exist and hasn't been fully funded? Can't we at least stop here? I tell you, Mr. Chairman, if this sort of spending, this sort of $1 million on a local project subsidizing a privately funded museum that doesn't even exist, if this isn't a million dollars we can save, then the message I think, Mr. Chairman, to the American people is that this Congress is absolutely unwilling to save any of their money and to reduce these deficits in the future, which is not just a problem for our children and grandchildren; the problem's going to come on us much sooner than that. It's a problem for us. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate a $235,000 earmark for Specialty Crops in Indiana, and reduces funding in the overall bill by that amount. According to the statement from the sponsor of the earmark, the gentleman from Indiana, this earmark of the Specialty Crops Research Extension and Training Center at the Southwest-Purdue Agricultural Center would go to increase their staff and upgrade equipment for the center. Mr. Chairman, I'm sure--and I expect we will hear from the gentleman from Indiana--and I'm sure that he will talk about what he believes the benefits of this program or this center or the additional equipment that this earmark would buy is going to be to that center. But, Mr. Chairman, as has been mentioned by the previous several speakers, and I'm sure will be mentioned by others, we are in a period of great fiscal strain, where we have a $2 trillion deficit running this year, another $1 trillion deficit every year for as far as the eye can see, and 46 cents of every dollar we spend on the floor of this House, 46 of every dollar this year will be borrowed. Even the Congressional Budget Office just 2 weeks ago said that the current budget and the current budget trajectory is ``unsustainable.'' Mr. Chairman, given the situation that we're in, given the deficits we're running, given the debt we're building up, given the amount of money that we're borrowing, given the spending that we're going through, shouldn't we be limiting what we're spending now to true national priorities, true things that are really those things that we must do and can only do right now rather than things that are designed for a specific district, specific area or a specific industry? Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this particular earmark is one of those things and does not rise to that level of national and critical importance that we should borrow another $108,000 from, as was said before, the Chinese, the Indians, whomever in order to fund this particular earmark. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, as I said, I appreciate the gentleman from Indiana's eloquent defense of this, and I understand his point. But there are roughly 400 earmarks in this bill; and at some point, Mr. Chairman, we've got to stop. And one of the things the gentleman mentioned was that we're helping farmers in Afghanistan farm and should we do this or do that? But the fact is, we're doing both. And the fact is that many times in this Chamber we decide to spend money on everything. Let's spend money on this farm here and this farm here, and this crop here and this crop there, and this State here and this State there, and this country here and this country there. And it's that kind of spending where we aren't making the choices to spend on some things and not on others, where we aren't making the decision to spend within our means, where we aren't deciding that, we're not going to borrow the money, we're not going to tax them more money. We're going to take what we have, and we're going to it allocate that as efficiently as we can to the places we think are the most important and not just do it to everything has got stop, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I understand that perhaps you think this is important, but what's more important is $2 trillion in additional debt this year, $13 trillion in debt overall, 46 cents on every dollar being borrowed, and most of it being borrowed from foreign nations and that it doesn't ever stop. According to the President's budget, it goes on and on and on. We have got to stop that. I would just suggest that maybe we start with things like this. It isn't about whether the bureaucracy spends this or not. This bill would save that $235,000 and not borrow any more money. Whether it's here or somewhere else, at some point, Mr. Chairman, we have to begin to control the spending and not borrow and deficit spend so much. I just hope if we can't start tonight, let's start tomorrow. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my demand for a recorded vote on all remaining amendments.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my demand for a recorded vote on the next amendment, No. 1.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my demand for a recorded vote on Campbell amendment No. 3.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my demand for a recorded vote on the Campbell-Flake amendment No. 3.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my demand for a recorded vote on Campbell-Flake amendment No. 4.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) with amendment No. 22.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chairman, this amendment would strike $2 million that is currently in the bill in funding to install a municipal water line to the Good Fellow Lodge at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in Porter, Indiana. The Good Fellow Youth Camp was operated by U.S. Steel from 1941 to 1976, the only one of its kind ever operated by U.S. Steel, and the facility offered summer camp opportunities for children of U.S. Steel employees who worked in the nearby Gary Works Steel plant. The National Park Service purchased this camp in 1976 for inclusion within the National Lakeshore, and given this historic background and involvement with the community, I can understand why the gentleman from Indiana has a desire to preserve the Good Fellow Lodge. In fact, Madam Chair, in the world of earmarks out there, this is not one that's being given to a private company without bidding. This is one that actually does have a Federal nexus because it's a national park. That is not what is at issue here. According to the Government Accountability Office, in 2008, the Department of the Interior had a backlog of deferred maintenance projects totaling between $13.2 and $19.4 billion. In other words, somewhere from $13 to $19 billion is how much money the Government Accountability Office believes the Department of the Interior needs to bring all of the various park projects up to snuff. And we hear about crumbling infrastructure, and Federal funds are not immune from that. To put that amount in perspective, the $13 to $19 billion, the entire budget of the Department of the Interior in this bill is $11 million, so it's more than an entire year's budget of the Department of Interior. So, the question before us, Madam Chair, is: With all these needs, billions of dollars of need in parks all around the country, is this the right way to allocate $2 million, that we take $2 million from the Park Service's budget, which clearly they believe is inadequate to take care of the needs of parks and allocate it on the basis of a Member's request? Or would it be better to be allocating these funds on the basis of need or on the basis of use or on the basis of someone looking at all of the potential park projects and needs around the country and determining which ones meet a threshold requirement rather than do this by a Member request, because every Member could have parks they could request for their districts. I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mine said $2 million. Is that in error?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will accept the gentleman's correction. He would know better than I.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's points and I appreciate the gentleman's passion for the project. But as I mentioned before, that is not the point. The point, I believe, is that there are 434 others of us who have parks that we may believe are greater in need than this or are just in as much need as this. Is this the way that we should allocate scarce resources around the various national parks that we have in the country? I think it's not. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, this amendment strikes $150,000--I hope I have the amount correct this time--allocated to the Traditional Arts in upstate New York in Canton, and reduces the overall funding in the bill by that amount. Madam Chair, I'm not sure if this earmark is going for the Village Park Historic Preservation, which is what is indicated on the list of earmarks released by the House Appropriations Committee and posted on their Web site, or to the Traditional Arts in upstate New York, Evergreen Folk Life Center, as listed, I believe, on the gentleman from New York, on his Web site, or maybe those are the same thing with a different name. I'm not quite sure. But regardless, when I Googled Village Park Historic Preservation and New York, the only thing that came up was the House Appropriations Committee earmark list. And when I Google Evergreen Folk Life Center in New York, the only thing that comes up is the gentleman from New York's earmark request on his Web site. I understand that the gentleman--and I'm sure he will say this with greater passion--sees that this benefits upstate New York and indicated this is a destination location and so forth and that there is a high unemployment rate in the district. But, of course, there is a high unemployment rate in many places around the country. Again, somewhat like the previous amendment and the previous earmark, I don't doubt at all that this is an important project to the gentleman from New York. I don't doubt at all that this is an important project perhaps to the citizens of that area of New York. But I do question if this is such a vital economic driver for the community that I haven't been able to find how or where it does that. I guess this earmark, whether it was this one or any other--could have picked many of them--the question basically is this, that we're going to have a $2 trillion deficit this year. Forty-six cents of every single dollar spent will be borrowed. Forty-six cents of this $150,000 this year will be borrowed. Is this a national priority? Is this something that, in these times, with the deficits and debt that we have, is this the sort of thing that rises to the level of a national priority such that we should borrow forty-six cents on the dollar, increase the deficit further, increase the debt further, and put ourselves in these kinds of problems? As I mentioned, Madam Chair, it's not that this particular project stands out over others. It could be this one or many others that exist in this bill or in many of the other appropriations bills that we will look at this year. And I think, Madam Chair, that the people of this country would be better served if we saved this money, didn't spend it, didn't borrow it, and tried to have a little better rein on some of their money. With that, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, again, I appreciate the gentleman's passion. I appreciate his commitment. I would say again--and if I am in error, correct me--but the description of the project on the Appropriations Web site is different than the sponsor's description of the project. I yield to the gentleman from New York.