mr. campbell: we would be happy to see it. we were not able to find this project. reclaiming my time, mr. chairman. it subsidizes $100,000 borrowed for the chamber of commerce in jamaica, new york. the chamber of commerce is a private entity funded by private businesses. so we are using $100,000 of of taxpayer money to subsidize private businesses here in a time when we don't have the borrowing and don't have the money. if we are going to do it for chamber of commerce in jamaica, why not the one in irvine where i live or thousands of chambers of commerces that exist all over the country? i will not yield because i probably have 15 seconds. mr. chairman, i would ask for a no vote on this -- 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 in critical nature. given the deficits we have. thank you. .

the chair: all time having expired, 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. the gentleman from california. mr. campbell: i request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment of the gentleman from california will be postponed. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mollohan: move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mollohan: i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks. the chair: in striking the last word, the gentleman may not offer specific blocks of time. mr. mollohan: thank you for reminding me. i'll give you a hand signal when

you're done. mr. meeks: i just wanted tomaker sure that i made clear on the record that the jamaica chamber of commerce is not a private entity, but a not-for-profit organization that is a public organization that depends upon public funds on the city of new york, state of new york and the federal government, because it is a not-for-profit organization trying to help create jobs in the queens area. thank you for the time. mr. mollohan: i yield for a response. mr. campbell: i understand the chamber of commerces are funded and their purpose is to help those organizations network and make more profit. there is nothing wrong and they do great things and all over and all that. but my objection to these things and it wouldn't matter if it was jamaica, new

york or down the road from me. i don't know how many chambers of commerces there are in the united states. tens of thousands. and should we be sending money to one and not another and aren't these entities that should learn to live and do their work without subsidies from the taxpayer, particularly given the deficits and debts and the situation that we're in now. my home state of california, we have an unemployment in excess of 11%. i get it what's going on and so forth with the economy. if we go down this road subsidizing these chambers of commerces, it will never stop is my fear. and we've got to stop spending what we're spending, not to mention not spend more. i thank the gentleman for the time. mr. mollohan: mr. chairman, i

yield the balance of my time to the the gentleman from california, mr. honda. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. honda: i thank the gentleman for yielding. just to respond to my friend on the other side, who indicated that on my website that the item of san jose state university was not on my website. mr. campbell, i have a copy of my website here. and so i'm going to tell you right now that it is on the website, has been there. and so, when you make those kinds of accusations, i think you need to double-check what it is that you are going to be saying. and to the idea of $180,000, although it may be small, what about this? by 2025, it's estimated the

global warming kinds of weather damages in terms of energy costs, estate costs, hurricane damage, those kinds -- global warming impact damages will cost approximately, i want you to hear this number, mr. campbell, $271 billion. that's estimated damages in the future. so $180,000 doesn't seem like a lot of money, but it's a great investment. and i come from an area called silicon valley where we understand our immediate return on investments. and if we can reduce the damages of $271 billion with $180,000 investment, that's a good investment by any means. and not only -- these are not only damages to property, but how about lives? being able to predict properly

the weather and do it in a way where people can avoid hog causes because of the weather, i think $180,000 is a good investment. and so coupled with $271 billion anticipated costs by global warming changes and the saving of lives, $180,000 is miniscule, but a good investment and by any standard. i just want to reiterate, it's good to be able to say it's not on the website and when you're not there in front of your computer, it's hard to say that he's wrong, but i just had to take this opportunity to let you know that going back to my website, i can show you if you'd like to see it the iteration that we have on our website.

and i suspect any other comments regarding any members' web sites, these things not appearing on the websites, could be questioned. thank you. champlete time the gentleman from west virginia has expired. mr. culberson: we have engaged in a very healthy and productive debate tonight that illustrates the very profound and important philosophical differences between the fiscal conservatives in the house and those in the majority who are -- i would -- with good intentions doing everything they can to take care of the nation's needs but at a far higher price tag. as a fiscal conservative and a member of this committee, appreciate the work that chairman mollohan has done to include both members of the minority and the majority in putting together this final bill, but as i a conservative

have profound concerns about the level of spending in this bill and other bills. i, for example, looking at the amendments before us tonight that we've discussed, i see mr. price's amendment, of georgia, representative price was asking that we cut this bill by 1%, one penny out of every dollar and allow the individual agencies to decide where to reduce that penny out of every dollar. to me, that's an absolutely sensible and very, in fact, frankly modest approach to dealing with size of the federal deficit and the debt. we, today, mr. chairman, and this congress and every one of us as guardians of the treasury, as stewards of the trust -- of the trust given us by our constituents have a responsibility first and foremost to think about the next generation, to think about the amount of money that we're

spending and the fact that the money we spend today is as, mr. campbell said, being borrowed from the chinese. that that debt will have to be paid. that we as congress have to remember on every vote on every issue, on every opportunity that we get, we should find ways to save money. and it's entirely appropriate and reasonable for this congress to trim expenses wherever we can at a time when the national debt is at record levels, when the deficit is at a record level, when we have already as we stand here tonight as a nation, accumulated over 60 thousands billion dollars of unfunded libets that must be paid by future generations. medicare runs out of money in 96 months. we have saddled our children and grandchildren with a level of

debt never before seen in our nation's history since world war ii. and for what end? we in this fiscally liberal majority in congress passed this massive -- what they call a stimulus bill that all by itself spent more money in one stroke than the entire annual budget of the united states. the bailout bills, which i also voted against, i voted against $2.6 trillion of spending under president bush. i have already had to vote against about $1.3 trillion of spending under president obama. those of us in the minority, the fiscal conservatives in the minority are doing everything we know how to do to bring to the attention of the american people the urgency and immediacy of the problem that we as congress have got to stop spending money, no new debt, no new spending has

got to be the new watch word. our conservatives on this side of the aisle have done our best to lay out a series of amendments to give the congress choices in cuts, which would give the agencies the discretion to go in and how to save that penny versus congresswoman blackburn's amendment which is an across-the-board cut from each program. we have had other amendments tonight, mr. jordan's amendment to cut -- 12.5 billion out of the bill. we are facing a debt of $11.6 trillion that is accumulating at the rate of over $2 trillion a year. these tea parties that we saw spring up across the country spontaneously represent a deep-seeded and well-founded fear among the american people that this congress is completely out of control with the new

leadership and the new president is spending money at a rate never before seen in american history. it is true as mr. hensarling, never before have so few spent so much in so little time. and we in the minority, the fiscal conservatives in the minority today have laid out tonight, mr. chairman, a number of thoughtful alternatives. my friend, mr. campbell, i would like to remain my remaining time to him so he can talk about some of the ideas he laid out and some of the members of the republican study committee. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california

rise? mr. campbell: mr. chairman, i rise as a designee of mr. lewis of california to offer amendment number 1707. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 107 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. campbell of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 552, the gentleman from california, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. campbell: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, we talked here this evening about the debt and we have talked about the spending. and you know, when you spend, more money than you're taking in in government, you have a deficit. now, most people, mr. chairman, who may be watching this at home, say, i can't do that, because if i spend more money than i'm taking in, i will eventually go broke. they have a business, personal

or whatever. mr. chairman, we are taking in more money -- we are spending more money than we are taking in by the federal government by nearly $2 trillion, with a t. i know billions seemed like a lot and now we are talking about trillions. and part of that includes $407.6 billion appropriation bill already passed just this year in this congress, which contained close to 9,000 earmarks. these earmarks totalled almost $11 billion and included $200,000 for tattoo removal and 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 by 6% 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 are spending too much money on waste. we are spending too much money on ineffective programs. and we are spending too much money on earmarks, on earmarks like the one that is before us here in amendment number 107. this earmark, mr. chairman, is for $600,000 to fund, quote, the summer flounder and black sea initiative project of the

partnership for the atlantic fisheries in point pleasant beach, new jersey. . $600,000 more on top of what we are already spending. creating $600,000 more deficit. this is 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. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. mollohan: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise.

the chair: is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from wisconsin? mr. mlohan: i am, mr. chairman. the chair: the question is on the motion to rise. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the committee will rise. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2847 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2847, and has come to no resolution thereon.

for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. mollohan: mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on appropriations, i present a privileged report for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany h.r. 2918, a bill making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the union calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 21, points of order are reserved. pursuant could clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

>> in a few moments, president obama announces propose changes to the potential regulatory system, bulbar reaction from congressional leaders. in a little more than a half- hour, republican members of the house and white house chief of staff rahm imanuel discuss plans for the future of health care. then in about an hour and a half, attorney general eric holder testifies about a variety of issues facing the justice department, including guantanamo bay detainee's.

>> the radio and television correspondents association holds its annual dinner friday with president obama scheduled to speak. live coverage at 9 of 45 eastern time. >> people do not want to think of roosevelt's conservation as a policy as much as a passion. he put aside millions of acres of while america. >> from crater lake to dallas tower and the grand canyon, president theodore roosevelt was on a mission to save the west. >> so now as people are talking about environmentalism and agreed movement, what has evolved is -- he was the only politician of the day who understood biology and understood birds migratory patterns, and mating habits of deer and elk and antelope, and actually did something.

>> sunday on "q&a", the first of two hours with douglas brinkley. sunday night at 8:00 on c-span, or download the c-span podcast. >> obama has announced a number of proposed changes to the financial regulatory system. the plan would create a way to dismantle large financial companies and, for the first time, impose regulations on certain types of transactions. this is 20 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much. please, everybody be seated. since taking office, my administration has mounted what i think has to be acknowledged as an extraordinary response to a historic economic crisis. even as we take decisive action to repair the damage to our

economy, we are working hard to build a new foundation with sustained economic growth. this will not be easy. we know that this recession is not the result of one failure but of many. many of the toughest challenges we face are the product of a cascade of mistakes and missed opportunities which took place over the course of decades. that is why as part of this new foundation, we are seeking to build an energy economy that creates new jobs and new businesses and will free us from our dependence on foreign oil. we want to foster an education system that instills in each generation the capacity to turn ideas into innovations and innovations into industries and jobs. as i discussed on monday at the american medical association, we want to reform our health-care system so we can remain healthy and competitive. this new foundation also requires strong, vibrant

financial markets. operating under transparent, fairly administered rules of the row that protect americans and our economy from the devastating breakdown we witnessed in recent years. it is an indisputable fact that one of the most significant contributors to our economic downturn was an unraveling of major financial institutions and a lack of adequate regulatory structures to prevent abuse and excess. a culture of irresponsibility took root from wall street to washington to main street. regulatory regime basically crafted in the wake of a 20 sentry economic crisis, the great depression, was overwhelmed by the speed, scope, and sophistication of a 21st century global economy. in recent years, financial innovators seeking an edge in

the marketplace produced a userid of new and complex financial instruments. these products such as asset based securities were designed to spread risk, but unfortunately ended up concentrating risk. loans were sold to banks. banks package these loans into securities. testers bought the securities often with little insight into the risk in which they were exposed. it was easy money while it lasted. but these schemes were built on a pile of sand, and as the appetite for these products group, lenders lowered standard to attract new borrowers. many americans bought homes and broad money without being adequately informed of the terms, and often without accepting the responsibilities. meanwhile, executive compensation, and more from long-term performance or even reality, rewarded recklessness rather than responsibility. this was not just the failure of

individuals, this was a failure of the entire system. the actions of many firms escaped scrutiny. in some cases, the dealings of these institutions were so complex and opaque that few inside or outside these companies understood what was happening. where there were gaps in the rules, regulators lack the authority to take action. where there were overlaps, regulators lacked accountability for their inaction. an absence of oversight engendered systematic and systemic abuses. instead of reducing risk, the market's actually many 5 -- magnified risks. there was far too much debt and not nearly enough capital in the system. the growing economy bred complacency. we all know the result. a bursting of a debt based a bubble, the failure of several of the world's largest financial

institutions, the sudden decline available credit, deterioration of the economy, the unprecedented intervention of the federal government to stabilize the financial markets and prevent a wider collapse, and most importantly, the terrible pain and the lives of ordinary americans. there are retirees who have lost much of their life savings, families devastated by job losses, small businesses forced to shut their doors. millions of americans who work hard and behave responsibly have seen their life dreams eroded by the irresponsibility of others and by the failure of their government to provide adequate oversight. our entire economy has been undermined by that failure. so the question is, what we do now? we did not choose how this crisis began, but we do have a choice in the legacy this crisis leaves behind. so today, my administration is

proposing a sweeping overhaul of the financial regulatory system, a transformation on a scale not seen since the reforms that followed the great depression. these proposals reflect intensive consultation with leaders of congress, including those who were here today, chairman dodd and chairman frank, who along with senator shelby and rep backus will be meeting with me throughout this process. they met with me earlier this year to jumpstart the discussion of reform. these reforms are also drawing on conversations with regulators, including those i met with this morning, as well as consumer advocates and business leaders, academic experts, and the broader public. in these efforts, we seek a careful balance. i have always and a strong believer in the power of the free market. it has been and will remain the

engine of america's progress, the source of prosperity that is unrivaled in history. i believe the jobs are best created not by government but by businesses and entrepreneurs who are willing to take a risk on a good idea. i believe that our role is not to disparage well but to expand its reach, not to stifle the market but to strengthen its ability to unleash the creativity and innovation that still makes this nation the envy of the world. that is our goal, to restore markets in which we will war -- reward hard work and responsibility and innovation, not recklessness and agreed, in which honest and vigorous competition in the system is brightest. those who gain the system -- who game the system are thwarted. we seek to put in place rules that will allow our markets to promote innovation while discouraging abuse. we seek to create a free-market which markets can function

freely and fairly without the fragility in which normal business cycles suddenly bring the risk of financial collapse. we want a system that works for businesses and consumers. there are those who will say that we do not go far enough, that should have scrapped the system altogether and started all over again. i think that would be a mistake. instead, we have crafted reforms to pinpoint the structural weaknesses that allow for this crisis and to make sure that these problems are dealt with so that we are preventing crises in the future. there are also those who say we are going to far, but the events of the past few years offer ample testimony for the need to make significant changes. the absence of a working regulatory regime over many parts of the financial system and over the system as a whole led us to near catastrophe. we should not forget that. we do not want to stifle inva