[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 81 (Wednesday, June 9, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1193-E1194]
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, 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. DEBBIE STABENOW

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 8, 1999

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1906) making 
     appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes:

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the Bass-DeFazio 
amendment to the Agricultural Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. 
The Bass-DeFazio amendment sought to reduce the Wildlife Services 
budget within the U.S. Department of Agriculture by $7 million.
  I object to the use of Wildlife Services funds in the western states 
of our nation for the control of predators such as coyotes. I agree 
with groups like the Humane Society that the practices used in the 
control of coyotes and other predatory animals are inhumane and a 
misuse of federal dollars.
  Unfortunately, I could not support the Bass-DeFazio amendment because 
the proposed cuts did not specifically target predator control programs 
in the west. As written, the amendment could have made a $7 million 
across-the-board cut to Wildlife Services--a crippling blow to a 
program that is typically funded at a level of $30 million. I would 
like to include for the record a letter from Secretary Glickman that 
describes how the proposed $7 million cut would have impeded the public 
health and safety efforts of Wildlife Services across the nation.
  Michigan is in the midst of a Bovine Tuberculosis (TB) crisis. A 
growing number of deer have been discovered with Bovine TB that is

[[Page E1194]]

being transferred to our state's cattle population. This threatens our 
state's ``TB Free'' status and could wreak havoc on the cattle and 
dairy industries in Michigan. Wildlife Services personnel have 
partnered with the Michigan Department of Agriculture since late 1997 
to eliminate Bovine TB in Michigan. The Bass-DeFazio amendment would 
have severely hindered this partnership would have delayed attention to 
this agricultural crisis in my state. For this reason, I could not 
support the Bass-DeFazio amendment.
  I know that many of my colleagues have similar concerns. They object 
to the inhumane use of Wildlife Services in the western states, but 
rely on the useful Wildlife Services funds in their districts. I urge 
the conferees for the Agricultural Appropriations bill to seek a 
solution to this conundrum that will eliminate inhumane Wildlife 
Services practices without hindering such important programs as Bovine 
TB control.

     Hon. Joe Skeen,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, 
         Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, 
         Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Joe: This is to express the Department of 
     Agriculture's concerns about a proposed amendment to the 
     Agriculture appropriations bill that would cut $7 million 
     from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for its 
     Wildlife Services (WS) program. The Department urges that 
     this amendment not be passed.
       While the amendment's supporters contend that the proposed 
     funding reduction would only affect predator control programs 
     for private ranches, in reality significant budget reductions 
     in this program would affect other WS program activities as 
     well. The same wildlife biologists who handle agricultural 
     protection work provide protection against threats to public 
     health and safety, damage to property, and protection of 
     natural resources such as threatened or endangered species. A 
     cut of $7 million in such a personnel-intensive activity 
     would result in a serious weakening of the WS infrastructure 
     through large-scale reductions-in-force. This will result in 
     the elimination of work to protect endangered and threatened 
     species, prevent bird strikes at airports, and control 
     animals that can transmit diseases to humans such as rabies, 
     plague, histoplasmosis, and Lyme disease.
       Most State and local governments are not in a position to 
     deal with these problems alone. This is why the WS program is 
     largely a cooperative program. In fact, cooperators provide 
     more than $30 million in funding for WS activities. Many 
     cooperators have indicated that they could not fund wildlife 
     management activities alone. Thus, a loss of Federal support 
     for this program could ultimately lead to the loss of State 
     and local funding as well. As you know, the President's 
     budget reduced WS by $1.8 million from the FY 1999 level by 
     assuming that cooperators could be encouraged to cover a 
     larger share of the program. Larger cuts would be extremely 
     difficult for Federal and State officials to manage.
       The Department also wishes to reiterate its continuing 
     support for predator control work. Protecting agricultural 
     resources is an investment we make on behalf of producers and 
     consumers. The total value of agricultural production in the 
     United States is estimated at about $200 billion annually 
     based on cash receipts at the farm gate. Agricultural losses 
     to wildlife in this country are estimated to range from $600 
     million to $1.6 billion annually. A disproportionate share of 
     this burden falls on small farmers. The National Commission 
     on Small Farms defines small farms as those with less than 
     $250,000 in gross receipts annually or farms with an average 
     size of less than 1,129 acres. WS estimates that more than 80 
     percent of its cooperative agreements in the United States 
     are with small farms and ranches.
       The range and extent of wildlife problems continues to grow 
     each year in response to expanding wildlife populations such 
     as predators, geese, deer, beavers, cormorants, and other 
     animals. There is an increasing need to look at these 
     problems from a national perspective to avoid simply moving 
     the problem from one location to another. WS provides the 
     responsible leadership necessary to bring balance to the 
     equation. The Department urges Congress to reject the 
     proposed amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Dan Glickman,
                                                        Secretary.

     

                          ____________________