[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 59 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4639-S4640]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CONSERVATION AND GRAZING

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition 
to President Clinton's actions to open our conservation reserve lands 
to cattle grazing. As someone who is concerned about the environment, I 
am disappointed by his decision.
  The conservation program pays ranchers to take ecologically fragile 
land out of grazing.
  It has been a very successful program and has put away some 36 
million acres away as a nature preserve. By removing these acres of 
land from cattle grazing and creating areas of undisturbed vegetative 
cover, the program has created habitat for many types of wildlife 
across the Great Plains and the Midwest, including waterfowl, 
pheasants, prairie grouse, raptors, and migratory songbirds. These 
species need undisturbed cover to nest and raise young successfully.
  But good green grass is hard to come by. The price of feed is up and 
the price of cattle is down. For some, the solution to higher beef 
prices may be to open up restricted land to grazing.
  But as Richard Cohen quickly pointed out in today's Washington Post, 
``First the oil reserves, then the conservation reserves and next--
maybe--the Federal Reserve.''
  In the name of environmental protection, this Congress fought off any 
attempts to allow grazing on ecologically sensitive land.
  In fact, in last month's farm bill we provided significant funding 
for the Conservation Reserve Program and made sure that wildlife 
habitat was a primary objective of the reserve program.
  By opening all 36 million CRP acres nationwide to grazing and haying 
with few constraints and little apparent consideration for the scope of 
the emergency, the Clinton administration has eliminated much of the 
wildlife value of the Conservation Program.

[[Page S4640]]

  In the Great Plains, it is now nesting season, and if cattle are 
allowed on the land, ducks and grassland songbirds are going to get 
trampled.
  Grass is growing where it has not grown in years and species that 
were once threatened are making a comeback. Unfortunately, President 
Clinton's action probably has negated all that progress this year.
  I am also disappointed that the Clinton administration made this 
decision without consulting the environmental and sportsmen 
communities. The conservation community, the Agriculture Department, 
even the environmentalist were surprised, and, frankly, I am surprised.
  I keep asking myself how can someone who calls himself an 
environmentalist justify opening up some of our most fragile and 
protected areas to cattle grazing?
  I believe that President Clinton's actions directly contradicts the 
belief that the Clinton administration truly cares about the 
environment.
  This situation demonstrates that, once again, the interests of 
sportsmen, conservationists, and the public still rank far below those 
of subsidized commodity agriculture.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the Washington Post article to which I earlier referred.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            Politics, Prices

                           (By Richard Cohen)

       What's the most dangerous place in the world? Bosnia? 
     Liberia? Chechnya? Anywhere in Montana? No. The answer is any 
     place between Bill Clinton and reelection. It is a no-man's 
     land where principle is sacrificed to politics and 
     consistency is given scant regard. That explains why the 
     administration moved this week to sell federal oil reserves 
     and open restricted lands to cattle grazing. It wants to 
     lower the price of gas and raise the price of beef.
       The average voter, which is to say me, is confused. If I 
     drive a little less but eat more meat, will that balance out? 
     If I drive a lot less and eat more steak, will that be better 
     for the country? If I drive down to see Alan Greenspan, will 
     I get even richer? After all, I sense a pattern: First the 
     oil reserves, then the conservation reserves and next--
     maybe--the Federal Reserve. Will Uncle Sam be giving away 
     money?
       Silly me, it already has. The federal government paid an 
     average of $27 a barrel for the 587 million barrels of oil 
     now in storage. Since Alaskan crude, the oil that most 
     approximates what Uncle Sam has in the cellar, is now selling 
     at about $20 a barrel, you don't have to be a regular Laura 
     D'Andrea Tyson to figure out that you would be taking a $7 
     loss on each barrel. Since the government plans to sell 12 
     million barrels, that amounts to an anti-profit (I thought 
     I'd coin yet another stupid economic term) of $84 million. 
     I'd say offhand that the per-capita cost to the average 
     American is anyone's guess.
       But it is not anyone's guess that Clinton is pursuing a 
     political, not economic, agenda. The price of gas became a 
     problem only when the networks started reporting on the story 
     and Bob Dole recommended repealing a 4.3-cent gas tax 
     increase that Clinton pushed through Congress in 1993. With 
     that, the White House rolled out its Big Bertha fax machines 
     and bombarded Washington with press releases noting that 
     Dole, in his reckless youth, had at one time supported a gas 
     tax increase. Next, the president announced he would sell 
     federal oil to drive down the price at the pump. But check 
     the pump. Nothing's happened.
       And nothing much will. Despite some Capitol Hill sound 
     bites to the contrary, the price of gas has increased for 
     sound economic reasons. The conspiracy to which some 
     politicians allude happens to include consumers who are 
     driving faster in heavier cars, a brutal winter and a 
     miscalculation on the availability of Iraqi oil. Prices will 
     go down eventually--but not, probably, before they go up some 
     more.
       In a sense, Clinton's response to Dole has been truly 
     impressive. As an exercise in cynical politics, it's a 
     masterpiece--a regular Mona Lisa or, if you will, a Jackie 
     Kennedy bauble. Opening up restricted grazing land is a 
     different story altogether. This is an appalling tale in 
     which, for a few votes, a conservation program has been 
     endangered without much thought at all.
       The program in question pays ranchers to take ecologically 
     fragile land out of grazing. In this way, some 36 million 
     acres (about the size of Iowa) has become a sort of nature 
     preserve. But the Great Plains are parched, and good grazing 
     land is hard to come by. As a result, the price of feed is up 
     and the price of cattle is down. (Ranchers have been selling 
     off their herds.) Understandably, ranchers have been eyeing 
     the acres in the Conservation Reserve Program. The grass 
     there is tall--yummy for cattle.
       But that land is also good for birds, and ducks. Now is the 
     nesting season, and if cattle are allowed on the land, a lot 
     of eggs and ducklings are going to get trampled. The program 
     is hardly perfect--too much acreage in some areas, not enough 
     in others--nor is it cheap. (Over a 10-year period, the 
     average payment has been a total of $52,800 for 97 acres.) 
     But grass is now growing where it has not grown in years.
       Maybe, after due deliberation, opening the land was the 
     best way to go. But there was no deliberation, due or 
     otherwise. The conservation community, even Department of 
     Agriculture officials, was taken by surprise at how fast this 
     decision was made. Clinton would barbecue Smokey the Bear to 
     win reelection.
       The administration is at odds with itself. If everything 
     works as planned, you could drive to McDonald's for less--and 
     pay more for a burger when you get there. The one consistency 
     is the fervid White House desire to put politics above 
     everything else. In that area, it has shown true leadership.
  Mr. ROTH. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer.

                          ____________________