John Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Reclaiming my time, as far as reaching out to staff, that's something the staff can talk about with each other. But you're right. Perhaps we should have asked that question. But there are discrepancies like that we should look at. But in any event, Madam Chair, whether it's this project or any other, we need to start saving some money. We need to start saving some money. This is an unsustainable spending pattern, and I would ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) with amendment No. 24.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment would remove $150,000 in funding for the Tarrytown Music Hall restoration to be received by the friends--and I'm sure I'm going to butcher the pronunciation of this--but the Mozartina Musical Arts Conservatory in Tarrytown, New York, and would reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. The intended purpose of this earmark is, quote, To preserve a historic landmark which would provide recreational and tourism economic benefits. According to the Tarrytown Music Hall's Web site, it was built in 1885 by a chocolate manufacturer William Wallace. The music hall is the oldest operating theater in Westchester County, having been designed by the same architect who designed New York City's Grand Central Station and Macy's Building in Herald Square. Today the music hall is a fully operating theater with capacity to seat an 843-seat audience. It's a pretty good-sized place. Tarrytown Music Hall is known for its excellent acoustics. In fact, in 1997 jazz singer Tony Bennett performed there in celebrated fashion without a microphone. Mr. Chair, the question I guess is, should taxpayers fund the restoration of a music hall where acclaimed artists such as Bruce Springsteen, Lyle Lovett and James Taylor have performed? This theater was also the site for scenes in movies such as The Preacher's Wife, Mona Lisa's Smile, and The Good Shepherd. Is such a site not able to sustain itself with private donations? And if that is the case, that it cannot sustain itself with private donations, then I would suggest that, is there sufficient public interest to restore this hall so much if private money can't be raised that we should force taxpayers to pay for it? In fact, according to its Web site, in the past year the theater itself donated over $80,000 worth of rehearsal and performance space and recently purchased land costing $2 million for staff parking and a future expansion. This weekend you can attend a performance at the Tarrytown Music Hall for a minimum price of $58 a seat and a maximum price of $80 a seat. Madam Chair, the question on this one, again, is not that it's not a fine place, it's not that it's not a historic place. But if we have a theater like this that commands those kinds of ticket prices, commands those kinds of artists performing there, has all this sort of activity around it, it should be able to raise money on its own. And given the $2 trillion deficit we have, given the national debt will double in 5 years and triple in 10, given the proposals on the majority side of the aisle that are being discussed to raise taxes all over the place, is this a place that we should be spending more of the taxpayers' money? Isn't this the sort of charitable function that people should raise money on their own? You know, there's a ton of this sort of project, this sort of application in my district and I'm sure in everyone else's districts. I--and I am sure many other people here--support these things with charitable contributions in various ways; and that's the way they should be supported, by the local community keeping them going. That's who will use them. That's who will appreciate them. But to ask the Federal taxpayers to come in and subsidize such a project, Madam Chair, I think is just not appropriate, particularly in these economic times. I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentlelady from New York's comments; but I don't think it changes any of the facts that I laid out. And I would argue--and again, not just with this one. There are others that could have been brought up as well--but that this is essentially a charitable contribution. Whether it's my district, your district or anyone else's, we have a number of such things for which charitable contributions should be made. I really don't think that the taxpayers of this country elected us in order to be conduits of their charitable contributions with their tax money. I think they elected us to spend as little of their money as possible on things only of national priority and Federal nexus. I'm just afraid I don't see where this or other projects like this rise to that standard. With that, Madam Chair, I would yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for his amendment No. 61.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. Angel Island Immigration Station is located in California State Park on Angel Island in San Francisco Bay. It was an active entry station into the United States from 1910 until 1940, and after 1940 it was used by the U.S. military until California State Parks assumed ownership in 1963. The earmark in question carves out $1 million for the rehabilitation of the immigration station's hospital. According to the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation, the hospital restoration is expected to cost $16 million total, and they are currently conducting a fundraising campaign to raise that money. Now Angel Island has already been the recipient of Federal earmarks in 2008 and in the omnibus in 2009, receiving $1.125 and $1.25 million respectively. This bill would bring another million, adding a total to this particular immigration station on Angel Island to $3.375 million. Now, Madam Chair, the Nation ran up a record level debt last year, $455 billion. We're set to eclipse that deficit by nearly four times and nearly $2 trillion this year and follow it up with another $1 trillion-plus deficit every single year from now through 2010. Although Angel Island is historic, and I, actually, personally, am a fan of historic preservation, although you may find that difficult to believe today. I just feel we shouldn't do it with taxpayer money in this way. Given our serious budget problems, the question of whether this rises to the level of the sort of thing we should be spending people's money on when American families all over this Nation are struggling in these tough economic times, we need to look at every bit of spending to determine if it's something we would like to have or something that we have to have. Madam Chair, given that the Obama budget recently passed by Democrats would triple the debt in the next 10 years, we need to set priorities; and we should only spend on those things that we have to have and not those things that we would like to have. Again, what makes Angel Island Immigration Station more worthy of $3 million than various other State parks, both in California and elsewhere? On December 8, 2005, Speaker Pelosi said, and I quote, It's just absolutely immoral for us to heap those deficits on our children. And then again, according to USA Today, on November 12, 2006, Speaker Pelosi said, There has to be transparency. I'd just as soon do away with all earmarks, but that probably isn't realistic. You can't have bridges to nowhere for America's children to pay for. Or if you do, you have to know whose it is. Madam Chair, there aren't many things lately I agree with the Speaker on, but I agree with both of those two comments. We have to stop passing on debt to our children. We have to stop spending money on things that are not national priorities, are not have-to-have items. And although this is in my home State of California, I believe this is one of those items. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, I appreciate my colleague from California's comments. Again, it doesn't change the facts of the matter. Let's put it maybe a little more specifically. This is $1 million going to this particular project that is a California State park, not a Federal park. And of that $1 million, $460,000 will have to be borrowed. Much of that money will be borrowed from the Chinese, from Indians, from Russians, from whomever. And as much as I agree with you, as I like to see our historic preservation and I'm totally with you on that, but there is a project out there. There is an effort out there to raise private funds for this, and that is where the effort should be. And as scarce as Federal dollars are right now and the number of needs that we have and the gigantic deficit that we are not just passing to our children, we are passing to us--$2 trillion a year increasing the debt? Senator McCain talks about generational theft. Yes, there is that. But we are passing this deficit on to us. I mean, in 5 years this is going to crush us, not 20, not 30, not 40. And we have got to stop it somewhere. And as much as I understand and appreciate your passion for this project, I also believe these are the sorts of things where we can start to save a little money. So I ask for an ``aye'' vote. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, I rise as a designee of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) with his amendment No. 25.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, this amendment would remove $150,000 of funding for the historic Fort Payne Coal and Iron Building rehabilitation and would lower the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. The Times Journal, Fort Payne's local paper, reported on June 9 of this year that the Fort Payne Coal and Iron Building will be renovated into the Fort Payne Culture and Heritage Center. The article goes on to reveal that the City of Fort Payne received a $90,000 grant from the Alabama State Council on the Arts in order to begin construction on this project, which starts this fall. Rehabilitation of the Coal and Iron Building into a culture and heritage center is the kind of thing that ought to be paid for at a State level or at a local level and by local communities. I applaud the ability of the council to make such a grant given the economic conditions that exist out there, but I question again whether this is one of those things which rises to the level of whether it should have another $150,000 of taxpayer money. Now, Madam Chair, this is the fifth and final of various amendments I have offered on behalf of myself and other Members this evening having to do with earmarks, and let me say this: I have heard the passion pleas, and I am sure I will hear another one, from people this evening about the importance of the project they're talking about. And I understand that. I get that. We all have things we think are important. And there are many things that are important, and we won't agree on what they are, but they're out there. But budgets are about making choices. We cannot do it all. And when we do it all, we get into the problems that we are in today. We get into deficits that go on without end a trillion dollars or more. We get into debt that will crush not just our children but ourselves. We get into spending that rises and rises and rises and won't stop. And there are so many things. I'm sure this project is one of them and I am sure that the gentleman from Alabama will make a defense of his project and his defense may be very legitimate. But there will be similar projects in my district and everyone else's. And then there are a million other things we could do. And what about little things like national defense? What about all kinds of other things that this Federal Government has to do? Madam Chair, it is time that we look at these earmarks and we look at the spending and we start to make those priorities and we say this is the amount of money we've got. And we have got to stop borrowing any more and we have got to stop pouring it onto our children, and we can't increase the taxes because you will send this economy into a double-dip recession; and that we set these priorities and we decide that there are certain things that are important and there are certain things that aren't. And, Madam Chair, I guess I would just ask, if anybody out there is listening or watching, is the Fort Payne Coal and Iron Building historic rehabilitation, is that a national priority that in these times, that in this kind of deficit and this kind of spending environment, rises to the level of something that we have to do? Madam Chair, at some point we have got to stop it. I would like to hope we can begin that process now. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chair, this bill, this appropriations bill, Interior appropriation, increases spending from last year by 17 percent. Now, I would ask how many Americans out there are going to see a 17 percent increase in their salaries? How many companies are going to be spending 17 percent more on their marketing budget on payroll, on anything else? And also today the Congressional Budget Office issued a report on the debt and the deficit, and I would encourage Members to read it and look at it. It essentially says that we can't keep it up, it's unsustainable, that it is basically unsustaining and unsustainable. Madam Chair, I understand this is only $150,000, but the journey of 1,000 miles does begin with a single step. And if we can begin by starting to not use taxpayers' money for charitable contributions, not using taxpayers' money for non-Federal priorities, not using taxpayers' money for earmarking to private companies without bids, then we begin that single step.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentlelady from Florida. This country has always stood with those around the world yearning for freedom, a voice and a better future. Whether those people were in Nazi Germany, Communist Eastern Europe, apartheid South Africa, or any other number of places around the world, we have stood with the freedom fighters. It is now time for us to stand with those in Iran who seek freedom from one of the world's most oppressive, most dangerous and most dictatorial regimes. I hope this resolution is not the end, but is just the beginning of the support that this government, both in Congress and the White House, gives to those people.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) to offer amendment No. 105.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Texas before me pointed out, this Nation right now is awash in debt. The Federal deficit is around $11 trillion, I think, at last count, but I think it's going up so fast, about $2 trillion a year, that it's probably larger than that now. And I don't know exactly what it is But 46 cents of every dollar spent by the Federal Government, spent by this Congress on the budget this year will be borrowed--46 cents of every dollar spent is going to be borrowed. The deficit will double in 5 years and triple in 10 years. Interest payments on the debt, interest payments alone are projected to be $1 out of every $6 of Federal spending by 2019; $1 out of every $6 we would spend just to pay interest on the debt. Our level of debt is projected by 2011 to reach 70 percent of our gross domestic product. Seventy percent of gross domestic product now for most people listening, Mr. Chairman, that may not mean anything much, but it's roughly the level where the United Kingdom, Britain, is at today, which resulted in a warning that they may get their credit rating downgraded. If that were to happen to the United States Treasury, then our interest rates would go up even more. These deficits, interest payments on the debts, will reach almost a trillion dollars coming forward. Chairman Bernanke has said we can't expect to continue to borrow even 4-5 percent of GDP in the future, but the President's budget proposal has deficits ranging from 4-6 percent of GDP. Mr. Chairman, the debt we have is absolutely unbelievable and unsustainable. We have to stop spending and borrowing so much money. So this amendment is dealing with a proposed $180,000 to be spent on ``training the next generation of weather forecasters for San Jose State University, San Jose, California.'' Now, Mr. Chairman, weather forecasting is a fine profession, and I'm sure San Jose State does a fine job teaching weather forecasters, as I'm sure weather forecasters around the country do. The question is, do we want to borrow another--because it will all be borrowed--borrow another $180,000 for this purpose? Do we want to subsidize the training at this university and not subsidize it anywhere else it is done? Is this $180,000 so critical--because we really shouldn't be spending anything right now and borrowing more money unless it's really critical to our needs in the future--is this $180,000 that critical that we should borrow it again going forward? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I appreciate the arguments from my colleague from California and his eloquence in presenting them. However, one of the things I would like to point out to the gentleman is that, unless we missed it somehow, I believe that all earmark requests are supposed to be shown on your Web site, and we were unable to find this on your Web site. But we were able to find that there was some of this funded last year, I believe, so that this is not simply a one-time funding request but, in fact, a multiple-year funding request. And as noble as the quest and so forth is that the gentleman described, San Jose State is a publicly supported university. It's part of the Cal State University system. And I guess part of the question is, can we continue to do this, Mr. Chairman? Can we take and borrow another $180,000 to put into this program to subsidize this program further? And is that such a critical need that this program gets another $180,000 from the Federal taxpayer, borrowed by the Federal taxpayer, that we can't take, starting now, just take $180,000 and save it and start to reduce the deficit and start to save a little money and start to reduce that debt so that hopefully we can begin to get this thing under control? Until we start to do that--I understand the gentleman's concern, Mr. Chairman, but until we start to do that, we are not just condemning our children and grandchildren to a mountain of debt, it is piling up so fast that we are condemning ourselves to a mountain of debt. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and ask for an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Mr. Lewis of California to offer amendment No. 104.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, you know, you don't get a mountain of debt without spending the money first. I would like to talk a little bit about the spending that this Congress and this President are doing. Nondefense discretionary spending--so that is basically nondefense and nonentitlement spending--for 2010 is rising in these appropriations bills we're dealing with now from the current year by 12.8 percent. That's $57 billion more that we're going to spend in the next fiscal year than we're spending in the current fiscal year only on nondefense discretionary spending. Now, Mr. Chairman, if you look at what's happening in the economy right now, growth is not--there is no growth. We are down. GDP is falling by somewhere from 4 to 6 percent on an annualized basis. And what that means is that the incomes of Americans are falling by 4 to 6 percent. They're not going up by 4 to 6 percent or 1 percent or 2 percent. They are, on balance, falling by 4 to 6 percent--obviously, some more than that, some less than that. But in this period when the incomes of Americans are falling 4 to 6 percent, should the government be increasing its bureaucratic spending by almost 13 percent? And if it does, where is that going to come from? If Americans are making 4 to 6 percent less, how is the government going to continue to spend 13 percent more? If you include defense spending, total discretionary spending is rising by 8 percent this year. And these numbers that I have just thrown out are in addition to the $787 billion stimulus bill that was passed earlier this year. When you put that into effect, Mr. Chairman, many of the agencies of government saw their budgets double over the previous year at a time when regular Americans at home are cutting back. And what are they going to have to do? This money doesn't drop out of the sky. I know people say, Oh, well, this spending is good for the economy. It doesn't drop out of the sky. It has to be borrowed or it has to be taxed, and right now we are borrowing it, and someday the people on the majority side will probably want to tax it. And that, Mr. Chairman, is an unsustainable process. The President's budget increases spending to more than $4 trillion, which is now 29 percent of the gross domestic product. That basically means almost $1 out of $3 of output in the country is now done by the Federal Government, not including State and local governments. After 10 years, the national debt will be a quarter of GDP. For every dollar the U.S. produces, 25 cents is eaten up in debt. Mr. Chairman, this particular earmark funds the Minority Business Development Agency for the Jamaica Chamber of Commerce in Jamaica, New York, for the Jamaica Export Center. Now, Mr. Chairman, it's $100,000 that is proposed to be spent--another $100,000 to be spent, another $100,000 to be borrowed, another $100,000 we don't have, Americans don't have--that is going to have to be borrowed or taxed to be spent for the Chamber of Commerce in Jamaica, New York, to set up an export center. Mr. Chairman, that just doesn't seem to me as a critical need at this time that we should be spending $100,000 more on to do. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. May I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the gentleman from New York as well that we could not find this earmark request on your Web site, which I believe is something that the committee rules require, we could not find that. So that is one thing we would like to point out to you. But also, Mr. Chairman, what this $100,000 that we are going to borrow does is subsidizes----