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? i certainly -- because every member could have parks this they could request for their districts. so, i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. >> i seek recognition in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> before i proceed, just for clarification, if i could ask the gentleman from california a question, did you indicate that this was an amount of $1 million or $2 million? mr. campbell: mine said $2 million is that an error? >> i would suggest to the gentleman that it is $1 million and that his statement was not correct. mr. campbell: ok. i will accept the gentleman's correction. i have no -- he would know better than i. mr. visclosky: madam chair, the gentleman talked about the preservation of the good fellow lodge that, as he rightfully indicated, became possessed by the national park service in 1977, 32 years ago. he also indicated correctly the deferred maintenance budget under the general accountability office. but i would point out that the $1 million designated in this bill, and i appreciate the consideration of the chair and the ranking member for including it, goes much beyond the issue of preservation. the fact is, it has a lot to do with education. the installation of the water line and the subsequent restoration of the lodge would allow the dune's learning center at which this lodge is located to expand their current educational program. . it provides hands-on learning. and since its inception, over 48,000 students have participated in the program, including a record 5,578 last year. for these thousands of learners, the environmental education center, which the good fellow lodge is intended to be part of is increasing each visitor's enjoyment and understanding of the parks and allow visitors to care about the parks on their own term. this is not just about preservation, but also about reducing future costs for the national park service. the fact is that the project would reduce national park service maintenance and operation costs. the internal filtering and clornation system for the wells that are currently on site must be maintained with weekly sampling and laboratory testing to satisfy state health standards. the park operates and maintains all pumps and water lines and this project would allow the park staff to focus on other priority assets in the park. and i would also point out that it something to do with the issue of safety. a municipal water supply line will increase supply in water pressure that will improve fire subpoena presentation for the student cabins at site and ensure portable water consumed by the children. this is very deserving and goes beyond the issue of preservation. and i would be happy to yield. mr. dicks: this amendment -- you put it on your website. it was taken and we looked at it very carefully and reviewed by e.p.a. and we feel that this is a totally justified amendment. and we strongly support it. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman's remarks and i reserve the balance of my time. mr. dicks: the park service strongly supports it. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. campbell: i appreciate the gentleman's point 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 need as this and is this the way that we should allocate scarce resources around the various national parks that we have in the country? and i think it's not. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i make the observation that the gentleman talks about other parks, but we are a society. taxpayers of northwest indiana pay for projects that potentially reduce flooding in a city like dallas, texas. the taxpayers in the state of illinois may pay taxes to make an investment in oak ridge in the state of tennessee that may have nothing to do with their interests but go to the benefits of everyone in the united states. this is at a national park and goes to every citizen of the united states. and i ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. campbell: on that, i would request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. campbell: i have an amendment at the desk, number 68. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 111-184 offered by mr. campbell of california the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. campbell and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. campbell: thank you, madam chair. this amendment strikes $150,000 allocated to the traditional arts in upstate new york and reduces the overall funding of the bill by that amount. madam chair, i'm not sure if this earmark is going for the village park historic preservation, which is indicated on the list released by the appropriations committee and posted on their website or to the traditional arts in upstate new york evergreen folklife center as listed on the the gentleman from new york on his website 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, the only thing that came up was the house appropriations earmark list. when i googled evergreen folklife center, the gentleman's earmark request came up on his website. the gentleman, i'm sure he will say this with greater passion, sees that this benefits upstate new york and that this is a destination location and there is a high unemployment rate in the district. 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. i don't doubt at all this is an important project to the citizens of that area of new york. but i do question if this is such a vital economic driver for the community -- i haven't been able to find how or where it does that. whether it was this one or another, could have picked many of them. question basically is this, that which are going to have a $2 trillion deficit. 46 cents of every single dollar spent will be borrowed. 46 cents of this $150,000 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 46 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 appropriation bills that we'll 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. and with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: first of all, i want to say we strongly oppose this amendment. we have checked on this project. we think this is a great project and think it's worthy and provides a lot of public good. and i would be glad to yield to my friend from new york, mr. mchugh, to further discuss this project. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. mchugh: i thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and also my dear friend, zrashede ranking member of the subcommittee and indeed, the appropriations committee in general for recognizing the value and the importance of this funding. as i have said to the gentleman from california friend and colleague, my colleague from arizona, mr. flake, in past years when he has brought amendments to the floor striking out at some of the programs that i have been proud to advance, i always appreciate the opportunity, madam chair, to rise and to talk a bit about the district that i have the honor of representing and the special people who live there. i agree, we have an economic challenge in this country. i'm not sure 1 -- $150,000 as much as i wish that all of us in america had that amount in our hip pocket. but taking with seriousness the gentleman from california's proposal, i would just make the following comment. most people in new york state is viewed through new york city. they think of broadway, the statue of liberty and think about all the great things that is indeed new york city and is in many real ways new york. and new york is all of that, but it's much more as well. in my part of the world, in my part of new york state, it's the st. lawrence river, the add ron dack mountains and park. the largest publicly held park in the lower 48 states. it's beauty, natural wonder. and it's great people. it's not a metro. it's small towns, villages and hamlets with very indust tryous and very proud and kind people. for all of our natural beauty, for all of it that causes us to be proud, it's a region that has long been confronted by economic challenges, closed factories, abandoned mills, failing farms, declining populations. in our part of the world, and i can't speak for the coast of california where the gentleman represents, and i know he does that proudly, economic development is something different. it's something that we take very seriously, but it has to be configured around those things that the good lord has given to us. the great universities, four of them within 10 miles of this facility. the tourism, which is our number one industry along with agriculture, those failing farms. the need to bring economic development by revitalizing downtown centers. i can't speak to the fact that the gentleman had trouble as he did in the first amendment identifying the right amount as to the proper group he was unable to identify, but the organization to which this money will go is a not-for-profit organization. they are configured in canton, new york and attempting to do all of the things i listed, bring economic development, vite liesing tourism, give people who come to that part of new york state, an opportunity to learn about the very special cultures starting in the 1600's in new york state, on the canadian border. that opportunity to revite lies that downtown center, create the opportunity for new businesses to come in and chance for the good and proud people to realize the glory and opportunity and growth that they had in the past. i don't think the gentleman from california has any animosity towards canton. i thought he could find it. but the fact of the matter is, i think we have a difference of philosophy. the gentleman doesn't believe it's the opportunity of members of congress to do within the rules and regulations within the standards established by this house and if we want to expand them, i'm happy to do that, to provide a little bit of help, in this case $150,000 to bring a difference where the unemployment rate is pushing over 10%. this is a program that is not just an earmark. it's under the save america's treasures act. the gentleman spoke vessel eloquently about standards, good guidance, about benchmarks. there are nine benchmarks under the save america's treasures act. where it is in the timeline, this project meets every one of those standards. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. campbell: thank you, madam chair, again, i appreciate the gentleman's passion and his commitment. i would say again, if i'm in error, correct me, but the description of the project on the appropriations website is different than the sponsor's description of the project in name -- i would yield. mr. mchugh: why didn't the gentleman come to me or go to the committee and ask what the difference was? we reached out to your staff today and we had a response that had nothing to do with what the offer was that was made. mr. campbell: reclaiming my time. as far as reaching out to staff, that's something staff can talk about with each other, but you're right. perhaps we should have asked that question. but there are discrepancies we should look at. but in any event, 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 path and i ask for a aye vote on this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the question is not agreed to. mr. campbell: madam chair, on that, i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. . for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. campbell: i rise as the designee of the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, with amendment number 24. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part c, amendment number 3 president clintonned -- printed in house report 111-184 offered by mr. campbell of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 578, the gentleman from california, mr. campbell, and a member owes posed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. campbell: thank you, madam chair. this amendment would remove $150,000 in funding for the terry town music hall restoration to be received by the friends, and i'm sure i'm going to butcher the pronunciation of this, but the musical arts conservetory and would reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commence rat amount. the intended purity of -- purpose of this earmark is to conserve an historic landmark which would provide tourism economic benefits. according to the terry town music hall's website, it was built in 1885 by william wallace. it is the oldest operating theater in westchester county, having been designed by the same architect who designed new york city's grand central stages and -- station and macy's building. today it is a fully operating theeter with a capacity to seat an 843-seat audience. terry town 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. speaker, 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 sceneses in movies such as "the preacher's wife" 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? the fact -- in fact, according to its website, in the past year the theater itself donated over $80,000 of space and recently purchased land costing $2 million for staff parking and future expansion. madam speaker, this weekend you can attend a performance at the music hall for a minimum price of $58 a seat and a maximum prize of $80 a seat -- price of $80 a seat. madam chair, the question on this one, again, is not that it's not a fine place, not that it's not a historic place, but if we have a theater like this that is entertaining those -- commands those kind 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 that we have, given a national debt that will double in five years and triple in 10 years, 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 we should be spending more of taxpayers' money? isn't in 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 district. and i, and i'm 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. and keeping them going. that's who will use them, that's who will appreciate them. but to ask federal taxpayers to come in and subsidize such a project, madam chair, i think is just not appropriate, particularly in these economic times and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> madam chair, i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> madam chair, i first want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his support and i congratulate him on a strong bill that i am proud to support. and i do respect the views of my colleagues, mr. flake from arizona, mr. campbell from california. i think they understand that this is not a partisan game that we're part of and they may have a principled stand for what they believe congress' role is in directing federal spending. however, on this issue we fundamentally disagree. i do believe that it's our responsibility as elected officials to fight for what is best in our district in accordance with the rules guiding federal programs. recipients of save america's treasures funds, including the terrytown music hall, do not expect the federal government to shoulder the full burden of their projects. they're required to provide a dollar for dollar match. and every dollar they receive from the government is matched. during these difficult economic times it is our responsibility to assist industries that make substantial contributions to our economy to accelerate growth nationally. terrytown music hall does generate more than $1 million in economic activity in my district. in fact, the arts industry throughout the united states generates more than $134 billion in economic activity annually and creates four million jobs across the country. in addition to their economic benefit, entities supported by save american treasures preserves the historic places and items that tell america's story for the next generation. they educate the public about our rich heritage, foster a sense of pride in our country and communities and terrytown music hall's cultural and educational programs serve more than 30,000 children each year. this project is providing $150,000 to perform necessary structural stabilization, meets the eligibility requirements of the save american treasures program as vetted by the department of interior and is consistent with earmark reforms instituted this year by chairman obey. and the projects account for less than 20% of the overall funding provided by the appropriations committee for save america's treasures and i want to -- mr. campbell: would you yield for a minute? before your time runs out, i want to say, our side strongly supports this amendment. it was properly vetted. this is one of those incredibly important things for our local community and we want this project to be funded. mrs. lowey: i thank the chair and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. campbell: thank you, madam chair. and i appreciate the lady 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 for this one, there are others that could have been brought up as well, but that this is essentially a charitable contribution. and whether it's my district, your district or anyone else's, we have a number of such things in which charitable contributions should be made. i really don't think that the taxpayers that -- of this country elected us to be conduits with their tax money. and i think they elected to us spend their money as little -- as little of their money as possible on things of only national priority and federal nexus and i'm afraid i don't see where this and other projects like this rise to that standard and with that, madam chair, i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i just want to make it very career that there seems to be a real difference of opinion as to what the responsibilities are of the member in congress. and the save america treasures program restores hundreds of cultural and historically significant institutions. they would be forced to shut their doors. so i again urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and support this facility and i again want to thank the chairman for his support because it really will make a difference in providing economic revitalization, not just to the facility but to the region and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. campbell: madam chair. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. campbell: on that i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman has requested a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. campbell: i rise as the designee of the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, for his amendment number 61. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part e, amendment number 1 printed in house report 111-184 offered by mr. campbell of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 578, the gentleman from california, mr. campbell, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. 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 to 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 $1.1 -- $1.250,000 million. this would add another $1 million making the total 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 deficits every single year from now through 2010. and 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 taxpayers' money in this way, but given our serious budget problems, the -- it's a question of whether this rises to the level of the sort of thing we should be spending people's money on. this american -- american families all over this nation are struggling in this tough economic time and we need to look at every bit of spending to determine if it's something we'd like to have or something that we have to have. madam chair, given that the budget recently passed, 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 those things 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 is just absolutely immoral, immoral, for us to heap those deficits on our children. unquote. and then again, according to "usa today" on november 12,