[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6191-H6193]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 451 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 3603.

                              {time}  1105


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3603) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Linder, Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose 
on Tuesday, June 11, 1996, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] had been disposed of and page 58, line 1 though 
page 68 line 22 was open for amendment at any point.
  Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to enter into a brief colloquy with the 
gentlewoman from Ohio, if that would be possible.
  Being a farmer-rancher by trade back in Oklahoma, I am particularly 
sensitive about the nature of the farm bill and appropriation bills or 
any other pieces of legislation that might have an impact on rural 
American production in agriculture. If I could, I would ask of the 
gentlewoman, it is my understanding that her provision in this 
appropriation bill does not impose any new requirements or provisions 
beyond those in the farm bill; is that correct?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would simply state to the gentleman that 
that is correct. The amount that was included in our bill was passed 
unanimously by our subcommittee. It was also passed in full committee 
and its intention is that the transition subsidy payments would require 
that farmers be engaged in the production of commodities or conserving 
purposes in order to receive assistance.
  So the answer to the gentleman's question is yes.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
reassurance that her language or provision does not impose any new 
requirement on producers beyond those in the farm bill.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H6192]]

  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
yielding to me. As a farmer myself, I have some real concerns also with 
this provision in the appropriations bill and I would like to ask the 
gentlewoman, if a farmer maintains his land in agricultural use or 
conserving use, he will maintain his eligibility for production 
flexibility contract without any additional reporting or other 
requirement; is that correct?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that is correct. The Secretary of Agriculture will administer the 
program under the requirements of the production flexibility contracts 
as contained in the act.
  Mr. LATHAM. So there will not be any additional reporting or other 
requirements?
  Ms. KAPTUR. No. The farmers have to go into the local farm service 
agencies anyway to sign these contracts, and that is the procedure that 
will be used in this.
  I think maybe it is important also just to place on the record, so 
Members understand what is going on here, there was somewhat of an 
omission in the original bill when it passed the House originally in 
that the conference report stated that farmers were really not required 
to plant a crop to qualify for a farm payment. The intention of this is 
not to reward investors but to reward farmers and ranchers who are 
actually doing the work of agriculture in this country.
  We also recognized the need for conservation and conserving uses, and 
we do make exceptions in the bill for weather. We cannot control 
drought or flooding or serious weather situations. So we are not after 
changing the requirements when they go into the farm service agency. We 
are just wanting to make sure these transition payments are going to 
farmers who are actually doing the work.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, and I assume 
conserving use means if land were to lay fallow, as is often used for 
resting land and things like that.
  Ms. KAPTUR. It has to have a crop cover. In other words, there is a 
lot of land out there that needs to replentify itself with additional 
moisture and so forth. We have severe problems in many parts of our 
country, we understand those needs, but we want the land ultimately to 
be used for livestock. We want it to be used for cash crops, vegetable 
crops, whatever. We just do not want to reward investors.
  We have gotten some letters from the gentleman's part of the country, 
for example, from tenant farmers who have had their contracts cut off 
for this next fiscal year because the investors who own the land can 
actually make more money by getting the payments from USDA than if, in 
fact, they had raised a herd or grown a crop. We want to prevent any 
abuse like that and really reward the people who are doing the work. 
That is the purpose of the language.
  I think both gentlemen, being respected ranchers and farmers in their 
own States, understand those who may try to cash in on a program like 
this, and I know that is not his intention in any way.
  Mr. LATHAM. And I appreciate the gentlewoman's response. She is aware 
that like a corn farmer in Ohio would get about $30 an acre and they 
probably would not even cover the property taxes, and farmers are 
farmers because they want to produce. I really do not know if the 
economics bear out the gentlewoman's concern here because I do not 
think anyone is going to let their land sit without production, but I 
appreciate the gentlewoman's response.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to this 
portion of the bill which are not limitation amendments?
  If not, the Clerk will read the last paragraph.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 733. Funds appropriated to the Department of 
     Agriculture may be used for incidental expenses such as 
     transportation, uniforms, lodging, and subsistence for 
     volunteers serving under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2272, when 
     such volunteers are engaged in the work of the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture; and for promotional items of 
     nominal value relating to the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
     Volunteer Programs.


                    amendment offered by mr. defazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio: At the end of the bill 
     (page 69, after line 5), insert the following new section:
       Sec.  . (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds 
     made available in this Act may be used for predator control 
     efforts under the Animal Damage Control Program in the 
     western region of the United States, except when it is made 
     known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or 
     expend such funds that the control efforts protect human 
     health or safety or endangered or threatened species.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided by this Act for salaries and expenses with respect 
     to the Animal Damage Control Program under the heading 
     ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'' is hereby 
     reduced by $13,400,000.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes and 
that the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Skeen] seek time in opposition?
  Mr. SKEEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] and 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will each be recognized for 
15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a simple amendment before the House. It is to eliminate an 
anachronistic, expensive, ineffective subsidy to a selected few 
livestock producers in the western United States. It does not prevent, 
and I want people to listen up, because there is some misinformation 
out there, it does not prevent the animal damage control from acting in 
cases that would affect human health or safety. That would be rabid 
animals or animals that are encroaching upon human habitation, problem 
animals or rogue animals.
  It does not eliminate controls that would deal with the safety of 
endangered or threatened species. It does not prevent any private 
individual, any private livestock producer or any other private 
individual, any county, or any State from expending their own funds 
under Federal law to control predators and other problem creatures. It 
does not prevent control of birds, insects for crop damage or safety at 
airports.
  What it does is eliminate $13.4 million from the budget that is now 
spent on an indiscriminate and ineffective predator control program, a 
subsidy provided by Federal taxpayers to some, a few, private livestock 
producers in the western United States.

                              {time}  1115

  If the issue were the real problems affecting the livestock industry 
in this country, the money would be better spent. The statistics for 
1995, national statistics gathered by the Agriculture Department, 3 
percent of the livestock losses in the United States were due to 
predators, 11 percent due to weather, 17 percent due to calving 
problems, 27 percent due to respiratory problems, and 25 percent due to 
digestive problems.
   Mr. Chairman, if we want to subsidize this industry, we would be 
better put to spend the Federal dollars solving the digestive problems 
of livestock or the respiratory problems, the calving problems, or 
solving the weather problem. But that would involve a government 
program, which of course we would not want to have.
  So, what we are suggesting here is we need to eliminate the subsidy, 
cut back this ineffective and indiscriminate problem, and to restore 
some natural order to the ecosystem of the Western United States.
   Mr. Chairman, in many cases when they go in and attempt to control 
coyotes, there are more now than when this program started in 1931. It 
actually increases the birth rate of the coyotes and spreads them over 
a larger area. So inadvertently, this program over time has wrought 
devastation in

[[Page H6193]]

terms of killing a whole lot of nontarget species, and even target 
species, but it has not been effective as a predator control program.
   Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. This 
amendment would have a far more devastating effect than I believe the 
gentleman intends it to have.
  The amendment would not only prohibit predator control efforts in the 
western region of the United States, but because of the 50-percent 
funding reduction to the program, it would also negatively impact work 
related to protecting the health and safety of the people of this 
country.
  The total funding for the program is $26.8 million nationwide. 
Approximately 30 percent of this funding or about $8 million, is spent 
on predator control to protect livestock across the country. Less than 
$8 million is spent in the western region. Reducing the program by 
$13.4 million will mean significant reductions to work conducted at 
airports to prevent wildlife-aircraft strikes; disease control work 
such as rabies in south Texas; brown tree snake management; and 
blackbird control.
  This reduction would also impact the cooperative agreements for ADC 
activities USDA has with all 50 States. States contribute over $22 
million of State funds for ADC related work.
  I do not think the gentleman from Oregon's intention is to impact the 
assistance provided to the Eugene Airport to reduce the threat of bird 
strikes to aircraft or the cooperative agreement ADC has with private 
timber companies to reduce black bear damage to timber resources in his 
own State, which is what this amendment would do if it passed.
  I strongly urge all Members to vote no on this amendment. This 
amendment has a far more devastating impact on ADC activities across 
the country. It is not limited to the predator control activities in 
the western region alone.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I was a county commissioner when we were in tough 
budget times, and despite the Federal share, we eliminated the Animal 
Damage Control Program in a county as large as the State of Connecticut 
with an extensive livestock industry, and we heard that there was going 
to be cataclysm, all of these deaths were going to occur of the 
livestock.
  Mr. Chairman, know what happened? Nothing. Nothing. There were no 
additional deaths in the livestock, the sheep, or the cattle industry, 
in a county the size of Connecticut, when we did away with this program 
with its indiscriminate killing of predators. In fact, it reduced other 
pest species such as rodents and things which the coyotes primarily 
prey upon.
  The gentleman talked about human health and safety. There is a line 
item in the ADC budget for human health and safety. If that line item 
at $3,197,040 is inadequate, then I would certainly join with the 
gentleman in a unanimous-consent request to shift some of the funds 
into that line item. But it has its own line item. This is only the 
livestock line item that is affected here.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] a couple of questions. I heard his opening 
statement. Am I to understand that only 3 percent of the animal damage 
is predator and so 97 percent is nonpredator-related, and that we are, 
in fact, doing a government subsidy for just this 3 percent?
  It seems to me we might be able to put that money to better use in 
doing some other research. The gentleman pointed out that it is animal 
disease that is generally what kills the creatures.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, the Department of 
Agriculture's own statistics for 1995 show that 97 percent of the 
mortality was due to causes other than predation, the largest being 
respiratory problems, 27 percent; second largest, digestive; third 
largest, calving problems.
  Perhaps if we applied more money to research in these areas there 
would be greater gains. But we have had this animal predator control 
program since 1931, and we have today more coyotes in the United States 
than when they started the program but they are more dispersed, and 
there are other problems that have been a consequence, particularly 
inadvertent kills of nontarget species.
  Mr. Chairman, I had a constituent whose dog was killed, and when she 
ran to rescue the dog who had gotten into one of those M44 explosive 
devices, she also had a cyanide poisoning.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
could I ask a couple of other questions? Would the gentleman's 
amendment affect bird damage for small fruits or berries or that sort 
of thing? Would it have an effect on that?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, no, I do not touch the $3,463,460 for crop 
control.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
DeFazio]. It seems to be that at a time when we are cutting back very 
much on agricultural support and our farmers are in deep need, that 
this may be one of those places where we could perhaps save and put it 
into other areas where our farmers are certainly being strapped 
financially.
  Mr. Chairman, I know there are huge cuts in this agricultural bill, 
and maybe this would be a place we could save some money for farmers 
across the country; not just a small subsidy for some western farmers.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The Committee will rise 
informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________