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

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, in accordance with earmark reform proposals currently under consideration in the House and Senate, I would like to place into the RECORD a listing of Congressionally-directed projects in my home state of Idaho that are contained within the report to this bill. These are projects that I asked the Agriculture Subcommittee to consider, both this year and in previous years, and I am grateful for their inclusion in this bill.

I'd like to take just a few minutes to describe why I supported these projects and why they are valuable to the nation and its taxpayers.

It is important to remember that the vast majority of these funds go to two entities.

First, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, CSREES, grants included below are targeted to our nation's Land Grant Colleges. In the case of Idaho, these funds are used by the University of Idaho to conduct research on a variety of crops important to the Pacific Northwest. I have also supported research in Washington and Oregon because their research is invaluable to my constituents as well.

In assessing the value of these requests, there are some important considerations that must be made. World labor standards and costs are far below those of the U.S. Our Nation's farmers are subjected to far more stringent environmental regulations than those of many of our competitors. Input costs in the U.S. far surpass those of other nations. And energy prices, including farm diesel, are rising dramatically.

So how can a U.S. farmer remain competitive in a global market? Through greater productivity and efficiency, increased yields, and better defenses against diseases. These are the very things that agriculture research funding delivers for U.S. producers--and for U.S. consumers.

If you want to rely on foreign nations for our food in the way we rely on them for our oil, then by all means eliminate these important agriculture research programs. But if you believe, as I do, that maintaining a domestic capability to produce our food is a national security issue, then you ought to support these research programs and fight for their continuation.

The second entity that receives the bulk of these funds is the Agriculture Research Service, ARS, and its stations across rural America. In Idaho, these institutions are conducting vital research into some of our most important crops--sugar, potatoes, small fruits, and aquaculture. I encourage all of my colleagues to visit an ARS station to see firsthand the value of this research. If you do, you will learn that these researchers are doing amazing things with very limited budgets. These projects are usually small in terms of their funding, but the benefits that flow from that research cannot be measured in dollars alone.

Two of the projects below are funded through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS. These two programs are critical to combating brucellosis in bison and cattle and in assisting ranchers whose livestock are harassed and killed by predators like wolves.

The Greater Yellowstone Brucellosis funding is particularly critical to my home State of Idaho. Idaho recently lost its brucellosis free status and these funds are critical to establishing a management plan that will allow Idaho to regain its brucellosis free status.

The Tri-State Predator control funding is hardly a handout to ranchers. The federal government forced wolf reintroduction on Idaho and other western states and it is duty-bound to pay for the deadly and gruesome impacts of this decision.

The final project on this list is the Idaho One-Plan. The Idaho One-Plan is a unique collaboration of agencies, industries, and associations dedicated to assisting Idaho farmers and ranchers in their continuing natural resource stewardship responsibilities. The program was developed jointly with state and federal resource agencies, the University of Idaho Cooperative Extension program, the Environmental Protection Agency, and local commodity groups. It's a successful program that has enormous value to not only the Idaho agriculture community and the environment, but to other states that might be interested in a similar collaborative process.

Mr. Chairman, any effort to remove these projects from the bill would not only result in zero savings to taxpayers, it would stop dead these important efforts to enhance and protect our nation's food supply.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally-directed projects in my region and an explanation of my support for them.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/