Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I hear the chairman's comments and remarks. There is no argument with anyone, I think, on this floor that executive pay has been an issue, that there have been excesses and that there have been problems that have been created in companies and the economy with executive compensation. I think I would argue that rather than excessive risk taking, that it's more about short-term thinking instead of long-term thinking, which, by the way, is way bigger than just executive pay and is way bigger than the scope of this bill, and which this bill will not solve. But that's another issue.

The question for me is whether this is the right way to deal with it. I would argue no, because is the only problem out there in corporate governance? Is the only thing that has created problems for companies related to executive pay? No. Let's look at General Motors and Chrysler and their recent problems. Were their problems created because of executive pay? I'm not sure I've heard anybody argue that. But were their problems caused, in part at least, because of excessive union contracts? Yes. How about with retirement programs that were unfundable over time? Yes. What about other companies where perhaps there have been legal settlements that have created problems that have been fatal or resulted in companies going bankrupt? Those have occurred. How about mergers and acquisitions?

So what are we going to do? Are we going to have shareholders vote on pay, on mergers, on acquisitions, on union contracts, on retirement pay, on legal settlements, on fees to attorneys? Any of those arguably can bring a company down. Should the shareholders have a say on that? You know, obviously the shareholders are the ultimate owners of the company. If you want to give them a say on pay, fine. Then you'd better give them a say on the rest of that. But I'm not sure anybody on this floor thinks that that's the right thing to do. The best way for shareholders to express their displeasure with the management or operation of a company is

through the board of directors. That's the way it has been done, and that's the way it should be done.

Mr. Speaker, the Cash for Clunkers program was inartfully drafted. It is more complex and cumbersome than it needs to be. The administration of it is not going very well at all, but it has worked. And, Mr. Speaker, we have passed a number of things in this Congress this year intended to stimulate the economy. The vast majority of them have

not had that effect, but this one has, and it has clearly worked.

For the initial $1 billion to be exhausted, that means that roughly 250,000 new vehicles must have been sold in just the last week or two in order to exhaust all of that money. That is clearing inventories in car dealerships, which means car dealers will be ordering more cars.

When they order more cars, plants will begin to run again. Plants will open up. They will be producing more cars, and people will go back to work. There will be suppliers that will produce supplies, various parts for those cars, steel mills producing for those cars, and those people will go back to work. There will be trucks and trains that deliver those cars, and those people will go back to work.

And Mr. Speaker, the $2 billion for this is coming out of the existing funding, so it is not increasing the debt or the deficit any more than what has already been there.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. I support this effort. It is the one thing that we have done here in this Congress that is absolutely working. It is stimulating the economy. It is creating jobs, and we want it to create more.

Mr. Chairman, I have at the desk Campbell amendment No. 1.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike the $3 million earmark for the Rapid Deployable Shelter project, which money would go to Johnson Outdoors Inc. Mr. Chairman, during the debate on the previous earmark, there's been a lot of discussion on all the previous earmarks about how the earmarks say that they are to be competitively bid. I guess the question that I would have is: If, in fact, the earmarks are to be competitively bid, why did the author/ sponsor of this earmark send in his certification letter to the ranking member and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to say, ``The entity to receive funding for this project is Johnson Outdoors Inc., 625 Conklin Road, Binghamton, New York, 13903.''

So I would ask the question of the sponsor: If these are to be competitively bid, how do you reconcile that with the statement that ``the entity to receive funding for this project is''?

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

If I can reclaim my time, and I understand--the gentleman from Washington and I have discussed this. Frankly, some day I hope--maybe after this, which is the last appropriations bill--we can sit down and see if we can figure something out here. Because this says, ``The entity to receive the funding for the project is.'' If that's not dispositive, I don't know what is.

Well, then, don't list the entity. If somebody requested the money, and the expectation is that they're going to get it, then where is the competitive bidding? Shouldn't we just simply say, Here is a project. Here is what it is. There is no name. There is no indication. Let whoever wants to bid for this thing compete for it, and require that there be a minimum of three bidders or the earmark doesn't go out. Because sometimes these things are written to a specific product that perhaps only one company makes.

I understand the gentleman from Washington's point on this, but I hope you understand mine. Mr. Chairman, this is a stain on this House. I don't want to be doing this. We've all got better things to do. There happens to be a recession going on. There are a lot of people out of work. There happens to be a big and legitimate debate about how health care should go forward in this country. We have a lot of things to do. But this has been a stain on this House, these earmarks, particularly the ones on private companies. I don't do any earmarks; and arguably, if I were king, I don't think we should do any in this House at all. I understand the legitimate argument for them, but I absolutely reject any thought or idea that earmarks that go to private entities like this, with a direction to a private entity, are anything but a stain in this House.

Mr. Chairman, there are former Members of this body in jail today because of earmarks to private entities. I wish I could say that there will never be any more, but I don't know that. But the way we won't have any more is if we stop this practice, and we don't do this sort of thing again in the future. This really is about this House and the integrity of this House and the view of the integrity of this House to the outside world, to our constituents, and to the people of the United States.

I would ask a couple of more questions. I am almost out of time. But did the company submit for defense procurement and was turned down, is that why you have this earmark? How did you determine the price, that $3 million is the right price? And will you, as other Members have, commit that you have not received and will not accept campaign contributions from company executives, employees, shareholders or lobbyists on this entity? Other Members on this floor have made that commitment.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 8 at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, first, before I discuss this amendment, I would like to make a comment relative to the gentleman from New York's defense of his earmark before.

If, in fact, these shelters are necessary--and I'm not going to dispute that point with the gentleman, they may in fact be--then why do we not have a designation that the Defense Department shall procure 9,000, 90,000, whatever it is, items of shelter, and they should procure them from a U.S.-based source, and they should do it under competitive bidding and get at least three bids and pick that which is deemed to be the highest quality and the lowest cost? Wouldn't that be an appropriate way to do this?

And that's what I am saying, and I think the gentleman from Arizona before me is saying. We are not here--and certainly I am not here--to say that it is not Congress' right to appropriate funds. It is, in fact, the right, as you have all pointed out, as enumerated in the Constitution. However, there is a right way to do that and there is a wrong way to do that. And with these 552 no-bid, going-to-private- companies earmarks, amounting to $1.3 billion, which if the 18 minutes of debate in committee were spent entirely on the earmarks means that each earmark received 2 seconds of debate, this is not the proper way to do it.

This particular earmark, Mr. Chairman, would strike $1.5 million designated for the Green Laboratories and Clean Rooms project and would reduce the overall funding of the bill by an equivalent amount, and this money is intended to go to Amethyst Technologies. And again, as we have discussed, if this is competitively bid, why does the sponsor's letter, which I have here, of certification of this earmark say, and I quote, ``The contact name and address is Ms. Kimberly Brown, President, Amethyst Technologies, 1450 South Rolling Road, Suite 2041, Baltimore, Maryland, 21227?''

Mr. Chairman, again I would ask--and I don't think I see the author of the earmark--but let me ask someone over there, whoever is going to deal with this, why, again, is only one company listed if it is to be competitively bid?

If there is no response to that, then I guess I would ask, did this company submit this to the Defense Department for procurement? Did this company even try to go to the Defense Department and make their case with those in the military whose job it is to determine what is best for the military?

I will yield, yes.

Reclaiming my time, Donald Rumsfeld is no longer Secretary of Defense, has not been for some time, and there is a different President. We are dealing with appropriations for a fiscal year that begins later this year and goes into 2010.

Look, if you think this is necessary, just don't say it's for this company, that it's $1.5 million. Because another question I would have is, how do you determine the $1.5 million is the right price? What are you getting for $1.5 million, and how do you know you couldn't get the same thing somewhere else for half that?

And I will yield.

Just reclaiming my time, I'm happy to exchange, but if there's nobody, then isn't that something the Armed Services Committee should be dealing with?

And I would yield.

Reclaiming my time----

Reclaiming my time, could I inquire as to how much time I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

I am going to reserve the balance of my time, and I would ask that the gentleman please continue his argument on his time.

Mr. Chairman, one other question, one that didn't get answered on the last earmark, and I will ask it again on this particular earmark. I understand the sponsor is not here, but will the sponsor commit, as other people have done on this floor, that he has not received and will not accept campaign contributions from the company, its executives, its stockholders, employees, or lobbyists, or other people who can benefit directly from the earmark? Because, Mr. Chairman, if people won't do that, then as the gentleman from Arizona and others have suggested, that is where, perhaps, we can get in deeper trouble on these sorts of things in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

Does the gentleman see a problem with doing these in the future without a company name?

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, this is a flow chart which the Democratic leadership doesn't want you to see, but this is a flow chart of the Democratic socialized medicine--I will use that term--but government- run health care plan. You see, you are here, your doctor is here, and all this stuff is somewhere in the middle. Now this plan adds 53 new departments, agencies and commissions.

Mr. Speaker, this plan is going to tax more. It is going to cost more. It is going to spend more. It is going to borrow more. But there is one thing we're going to get a lot less of, and that's jobs, by some estimates, nearly 5 million less jobs. Why would we want to do this? This isn't health care reform; this is just nuts.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, PAYGO is a sham. Now, that's a very strong word, but the facts that support it are equally strong. In the last Congress since Democrats took control and PAYGO was enacted, $420 billion of new spending was exempted from its provisions. Over the last few weeks, this House has passed nine new spending bills. Every one of those new spending bills increased spending over the last year by as much as 22 percent, and not a single dollar of those spending increases was paid for. Every one will add to the deficit, add to the debt, and about 46 cents of every one of those dollars will be borrowed, primarily from the Chinese, Indians, and other foreigners.

The deficit has gone from $160 billion to nearly $2 trillion since PAYGO started. How does that make this a good thing? How is that an example of how this has worked to control spending and be fiscally responsible?

And in PAYGO, spending increases don't have to be paid for but tax cuts do, and there is nothing in here whatsoever to deal with our ballooning massive debt.

Mr. Speaker, PAYGO is nothing more than a public relations effort to make the most profligate Congress ever appear to be less profligate. The American people are not buying it.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. Americans know they should save for their retirement, but it's tough because you've got to put money away now for later, and there are things to spend it on now. You know, there is a nice dinner to go to; there is a vacation to take, maybe a TV or a car to buy or something like that. So what do we do? I do it. Probably many people listening to this do it. Your employer takes it out of your paycheck so that you kind of never see it, and it goes straight to your retirement so you can save it so that you know it will be there when you need it.

What that is is an external discipline, making us do the thing we know is right for us to do but that, as human beings, we have a hard time doing ourselves without that external discipline.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is that external discipline. Because Members of Congress are no different than anybody else. When we have money, we spend it. When Republicans were in charge, we spent too much money. We overspent by hundreds of billions of dollars. Now the Democrats are in charge. They're overspending by trillions of dollars. But whether it's hundreds of billions or trillions, whichever majority has been in this Congress, we have spent more than we have taken in. I can't remember the exact figure; but I think that for 43 out of the last 45 years this Congress has spent more money than revenue that has come in and has run a deficit, regardless of who was in the White House or who was in charge. We can't do that.

What this bill says is you can't increase spending faster than people's incomes. It's that simple. Because if you do, if the Federal Government spends more money, increases spending by more than people's incomes have increased, there's only two ways to do it, borrow it or increase taxes. And if we continue to do it, we continue to borrow and we continue to increase taxes until we will have no economy and no growth left. Mr. Speaker, that's where we are right now.

Mr. Speaker, that is where we are right now. We don't have to wait 10 years, 15 years or 20 years. We are in that position right now. The American people are taxed too much, and we are borrowing way, way too much. This bill, this discipline, this Republican substitute will bring that to an end; and I urge us all to support it.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, President Obama told us that all this reckless spending he was doing was going to create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? Instead of jobs, we get a so-called ``health reform'' bill. And this provision of that bill tells Americans that they will be prohibited from having their own insurance. They will be forced into a government health plan run by something like the IRS.

Mr. Speaker, this health plan is socialized medicine, pure and simple. And in addition to that, it will cost more. It will increase taxes on the wealthy and a whole lot of other people. It will increase the deficit. It will lower quality. It doesn't cover everyone. And it is projected to lose another 5 million jobs of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, this is not reform. This is just nuts.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike a $1 million earmark that is for--and being from California, I will apologize in advance to the gentleman from Massachusetts if I butcher the name of the river, the pronunciation of the name of the river, but is it Housatonic? You can correct me when it's your time, but the Housatonic River Museum in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and it reduces funding in the overall bill by that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is not unusual lately to see amendments for funding of museums in local communities and around the country, but this one's particularly unusual, I believe, because, as far as I can determine from the Web site, this museum doesn't currently exist. And if I am reading the Web site for this museum correctly, they're still in the design and development phase of this building, and it would appear that this is a $1 million earmark to go to a museum in Massachusetts which does not currently exist and which, according to their own Web site, would not even have construction completed until 2012. And of course, this is the appropriations funding for 2010, so this funding would be available for the museum 2 years before even their Web site indicates they might be completed. So this appears to be an amendment for a museum, $1 million for the museum that doesn't exist.

And I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that it sounds like the museum is going to be a very neat, cool, useful museum in the local area, but I guess I would ask the gentleman a question. Does this museum currently exist?

And I would yield to the gentleman. Does it currently exist?

So it is under construction.

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. 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.

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

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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. 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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Mine said $2 million. Is that in error?

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

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.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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.

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.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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.

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.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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.

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

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----

Very quickly, yes, I will yield.

We would be happy to see it. We were not able to find this project.

But reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it subsidizes $100,000 it would borrow for the Chamber of Commerce in Jamaica, New York. The Chamber of Commerce in Jamaica, New York, is a private entity funded by private businesses. So we are using $100,000 of taxpayer money to subsidize private businesses here at a time when we don't have the money. And if we're going to do it for the Chamber of Commerce in Jamaica, why not do it for the Chamber of Commerce in Irvine, where I live, or the thousands of Chambers of Commerce that exist all over the country.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on this amendment to remove this $100,000 and save a little bit, and start now by not doing this sort of thing anymore that is just not of a critical nature, given the debt and deficits we have.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I understand that chambers of commerce are nonprofit organizations, but they are funded by profit-making organizations and their purpose is to try to help those organizations network and make more profit. There is obviously nothing wrong with chambers of commerce. They are great things and they are all over and all that.

But my objection to these things, it wouldn't matter if it was Jamaica, New York, or if it was down the road from me. I don't know how many chambers of commerce there are in the United States, thousands of them, tens of thousands, but should we be sending money to one and not another? And aren't these entities that should learn to live and learn to do their work without subsidies from the taxpayer, particularly given the deficits and debts and the situation that we are in now?

In my home State of California, we have an unemployment rate in excess of 11 percent. So I get it, what is going on and so forth with the economy out there. But if we go down this road of starting to subsidize these chambers of commerce, it will never stop, is my fear. We have got to stop spending what we are spending, not to mention not spend more.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Mr. Lewis of California to offer amendment No. 107.

Mr. Chairman, we have talked here this evening about the debt and we have talked about the spending. And, you know, when you spend more money than you are taking in in government, you have a deficit.

Now, most people, Mr. Chairman, that may be watching this at home say, well, I can't do that, because if I spend more money than I am taking in, I will eventually go broke, if they have a business or their personal spending or whatever.

Mr. Chairman, we are spending more money than we are taking in here in the Federal Government by about nearly 2 trillion, that is with a T, dollars this year. I remember when $1 billion seemed like it was a big deal, and now we are talking about trillions, we are spending so much.

Part of that includes a $407.6 billion appropriation bill already passed just this year in this Congress which contained close to 9,000 earmarks. These earmarks totaled almost $11 billion and included such things as $200,000 for tattoo removal and $2.2 million for grape genetics, amongst other things. This $2 trillion deficit is the largest deficit as a percent of our economy of any year since World War II.

The President's stimulus bill included spending of $43.6 billion for 15 programs that the Office of Management and Budget called ineffective or having results not demonstrated. We could have decreased that program by 6 percent, that whole stimulus bill, just by eliminating that $43.6 billion of programs that this government says are ineffective or have results that are not demonstrated.

Mr. Chairman, we are spending way too much money. We're spending too much money on waste. We're spending too much money on duplicative and ineffective programs, and we're spending too much money on earmarks, on earmarks like the one that is before us here in amendment No. 107.

This earmark, Mr. Chairman, is for $600,000 to fund the Summer Flounder and Black Sea Initiative project of the Partnership for Mid- Atlantic Fisheries in Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey.

Now, Mr. Chairman, $600,000 more spending, on top of the $4 trillion we're already spending, on top of creating $600,000 more deficit, and this is just one of what I'm sure will be thousands of earmarks in all of these appropriations bills for summer flounder and other fish?

Can the flounders get along without this $600,000? I think they can, Mr. Chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Campbell

Amendment No. 104: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Campbell

Amendment No. 105: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: