As House Majority Whip, S.C. Congressman Jim Clyburn is one of the most influential Democrats in Washington. Recently, The State newspaper reported that Clyburn “is using his clout to obtain funding for 34 earmarks worth $45.4 million, more than the state’s other five House members combined.”
In a speech to the state General Assembly earlier this year, Clyburn explained his position on earmarks.
Excerpt from
Hope For South Carolina’s Future: Remarks to the South Carolina General Assembly
By Congressman James E. Clyburn
April 10, 2007
Beyond my broad vision for South Carolina’s future, there are a handful of issues that are on the minds of my colleagues in Washington and many of you today that I would like to address as well this afternoon.
First, is the practice of “Earmarking”:
The practice has come under fire lately as being a device for pork-barrel spending and budget increases. That’s a total misrepresentation, and let me tell you why. Two weeks ago the House adopted a budget Resolution which sets federal spending limits for Fiscal Year 2008. Even if Members of Congress reserve a percentage of those allocations for their constituents’ priorities, funding cannot exceed those limits.
Earmarks are not add-ons to the budget, and they are not by definition wasteful spending projects. Every one I have ever secured was requested by a constituent. They are investments in our communities and institutions, like all the water projects I mentioned earlier and I-CAR (International Center for Automotive Research) at Clemson, the Hydrogen Fuel Cell project at the University of South Carolina, the Transportation Center at South Carolina State, and the Hollings Oncology Center at the Medical University of South Carolina.
I share these and other constituencies with many of you. If done through an open and transparent budgetary process, I believe earmarking is a good way for us as elected representatives to be responsive to the needs and aspirations of our constituents.
Eliminating earmarks will do nothing to stop those intent on illegally manipulating the process. It would, however, shift the entire process of determining funding priorities from us and our constituents to faceless agency bureaucrats, highly-paid grants writers and well-connected lobbyists.
Earmarking is the best way to ensure federal dollars are effectively spent on the priorities outlined by local communities, rather than out-of-state bureaucrats.
