Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2007

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 -- (House of Representatives - May 23, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, while I do not want to respond to this specific project, I do want to respond to what the gentleman from Arizona talked about just a little bit ago. He mentioned 10,000 earmarks and $29 billion last year. And he seeks to reduce the spending because somehow I guess the implication is that that $29 billion is wasteful spending. What that is is $29 billion that Congress has directed how it is going to be spent and not the administration.

When the administration proposes a budget, it is a recommendation that comes to Congress. It is full of earmarks. Administration earmarks. Earmarks that they believe how the money should be spent. Congress in their budget process, in their hearing process, in the Appropriations Committee make certain determinations. Some of them, in fact, most of them are that the administration's requests are appropriate. Sometimes we disagree with them. We say spending ought to be done somewhere else. We have different priorities. Those are called earmarks. I call them congressionally directed spending.

To tell you the truth, I wish we congressionally directed all of the spending. Remember, the President just makes recommendations. It is this Congress's responsibility to determine where the spending is going to go and to tell an administration or an agency that some of this money, a very, very small percentage of it is going to be spent in certain projects that we think are important, at least a majority here do, I think is our role. And to suggest that all $29 billion or 10,000 earmarks, whatever the amount was, is wasteful spending is to mislead the American people.

Are there some wasteful things in there? Sure. But if you think giving the money just to the administration to determine how it ought to be spent rather than Congress directing it, all of the sudden it is going to be spent appropriately, then I want to know why there are 10,000 trailers sitting in Hope, Arkansas.

The administration can waste money just like Congress can. Sure, there is some spending in there that we would all say is inappropriate, but that is our job to get after it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me first say, the gentleman from Arizona has every right to do exactly what he is doing. I believe he is sincere in his efforts, and he is right, we are not potted plants. We are elected representatives. The funny thing about democracy is a majority has a tendency to rule, and if the gentleman offers something and a majority vote against him, then they have obviously supported what he does not. That is the way the process works.

I do not ask for congressionally directed spending that I cannot justify. In fact, not all of the congressionally directed spending that I have requested is for projects in my district. Some of them are in other districts for things that I think are important. One of them is the wood utilization program. In fact, I post all of the congressionally directed spending that I have had part in obtaining on my Web site. I want my constituents to be able to see it, and I tell them if they think there is anything in there that is wasteful, that we should not be spending on, to call me and talk to me and let me know.

In fact, I entered in the RECORD earlier today on this bill all of the projects that I had had any part in directing the congressional spending on so the people could see them, and I have put in the justification for them that I felt.

The gentleman said that the Labor-HHS bill last year was the only one we got right, and I would only ask, you know, by putting no congressionally directed spending in there, who knows their districts better, who knows the needs of their constituents better, bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., or the people they elect to Congress? To suggest the only reason we put them in there is to gain the votes of a majority of this place to pass a bill, is wrong. To suggest that every congressionally directed spending earmark, as you would say, is wasteful, is wrong.

Now, with the wood utilization program, I want to show you a list, and I will not enter it into the journal because it would take up too much paper, these are the saw mills that have closed since 1998. You can go through here: Alabama; geez, California's had so many, It is something like 98; Georgia, 18; Idaho, 17; Arizona, 17; Louisiana, 24; Oregon 218. These are the saw mills that have closed since 1998 because we have stopped using and cutting timber.

Because of the Healthy Forest Initiative and because of fire suppression in the past, we have got a lot of stands that are small diameter timber. The days of cutting the old-growth, large trees are pretty much gone. We have to learn how to use small diameter timber, and that is what a lot of how this program is for, is how do we effectively use small diameter timber?

The research that is being done in these programs at I guess 11 different State universities that receive this funding are to help the industry develop products that are used today with the small diameter timber, and there are wood byproducts that occur.

To me, that is an appropriate use of congressional spending, and so I support it and I justify it, and we will see if the majority agrees with you or me.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/