THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
[Page: H5766] GPO's PDF---
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 538 and rule XVIII, 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. 4461.
[Time: 12:45]
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. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. NUSSLE in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Monday, July 10, 2000, pending was amendment No. 39 by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DEFAZIO).
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendments to the bill shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate and amendments printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD numbered 9, 29, 32, 37, 48, 61, and 68, which may be offered only by the Member designated in the order of the House or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed or a designee, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
Eight and one-half minutes of debate remain on amendment No. 39 by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DEFAZIO). The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DEFAZIO) has 2 1/2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. SKEEN) has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the primary author of the amendment, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DEFAZIO).
I want to be clear, in light of my responsibilities on the Subcommittee on
[Page: H5767] GPO's PDF
It is my understanding that the gentleman does not intend to impede recovery programs directed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and sometimes performed in part by the Wildlife Services.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, it is not my intent to impede recovery programs for threatened or endangered species administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I want to emphasize that when these rare killings of threatened or endangered species do occur, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Wildlife Services should only use the most humane method of killing, such as shooting or foot snares with tranquilizer tabs.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will again yield, I agree that the Fish and Wildlife Service and Wildlife Services should use the most humane methods in the conduct of their responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New Mexico yielding.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. SIMPSON).
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, this may be the most ill-conceived amendment that we have considered during debate on this bill.
Some have called this nothing more than corporate welfare. Well, I will tell my colleagues that in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, what the Federal Government has done, at a cost of $1 million apiece, is they have reintroduced wolves into the State of Idaho as ``nonessential experimental populations.'' They are costing ranchers and farmers thousands and thousands of dollars. Not only are they costing ranchers and farmers money, they are decimating our elk and deer herds.
Ranchers would like to take care of this problem themselves. Unfortunately, there are substantial penalties and fines involved. It has been said that the Fish and Wildlife Service does not use other nonlethal means of trying to maintain control of these predators. The fact is that we capture them, we trap them, we have taken them to other parts of the State, as far away as 300 and 400 miles; and we find that within 2, 3, 4 days, a week, they are back in their original location, oftentimes.
In fact, last week I was in Idaho in the Saw Tooth Mountains, and I bought this book; and I would like to take just a moment to reintroduce my colleagues or introduce my colleagues to the Saw Tooth pack of wolves in the State of Idaho. Now, I have to admit, these are beautiful animals. In fact, if we look at this page here, this is their class picture in the nice, soft focus. This is Komoto, the alpha leader. He is regal, confident and benevolent. This here is Moto. He is of middle rank. He is bright, curious and energetic. He also initiates play. Unfortunately, let me show my colleagues what play looks like to Bambi. This is what play looks like to Bambi.
Now, I will tell my colleagues, they are causing great problems in the State of Idaho. But we knew as part of the deal of reintroduction of these wolves as a nonessential experimental population is that we would have to manage some of them. We would have to kill some of the wolves that got out of control . That was part of the deal. Unfortunately, we have had to do that. Anyone that thought we were going to reintroduce wolves into Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Minnesota, or New York had better be prepared to deal with the problem wolves that occur. It is not just in the wilderness. We have mothers that are standing by school buses in Salmon, Idaho, because wolves are on the borders of the communities.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GOODLATTE).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his support in opposition to this amendment. This is something that is vitally important to my congressional district where much of it is mountainous land where we have sheep herds; we have other livestock that are threatened by coyotes. It has become a very, very serious problem in the State of Virginia. This is not just a Western problem.
Unfortunately, Virginia only receives $35,000 for the entire State for predator control , and we are losing the battle to preserve a valuable resource in our State. For the first time in history, the Virginia sheep flock has dipped below 100,000 animals. Conversely, the coyote population is growing at a rate of between 20 percent and 50 percent, according to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. The limited amount of money received from the Wildlife Services Program only funds one trapper who has to monitor the traps in 17 counties. The USDA agrees that our area is desperately understaffed. It is impossible for one staff member to monitor 17 counties under the Wildlife Services Program.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits USDA Wildlife Service (WS) professionals from attempting to prevent wildlife damage. This Wildlife Service program is directed by professional wildlife biologists and is vital to managing wildlife in order to protect human health and safety, prevent environmental damage and to protect agricultural and rural economic interests.
Many perceive this as a strictly Western issue. Not so. Virginia has one of the largest sheep populations in the Eastern United States and Wildlife Services helps protect this valuable resource, valued at $8.1 million. Unfortunately Virginia only receives $35,000 for predator control and we are losing the battle. For the first time in history, the Virginia sheep flock has dipped below 100,000 animals. Conversely, the coyote population is growing at a rate between 20% and 50% according to VA Department of Game and inland fisheries.
The limited amount of money received from the Wildlife Services Program only funds one trapper who has to monitor the traps in 17 counties. USDA agrees that our area is desperately understaffed. It is impossible for one staff member to monitor seventeen counties under the Wildlife Services Program. Because the trapper has responsibility over such a large area he was only able to trap 40 coyotes in Highland county last year. The coyote population is thought to be in the thousands.
I have asked the Department to reexamine their geographic allocation of resources within the Wildlife Services Program to see if more staff can be dedicated to our area but that would take existing resources from an existing program, destroying the investment already made in that area.
Supporters of this amendment will say that the program is bad for the environment. This is simply not true. Many Wildlife Services projects have benefited threatened and endangered species. Wildlife Services personnel work closely with officials from U.S. Fish and Wildlife or the appropriate state agency. Last year, Wildlife Services helped to protect 84 threatened or endangered species from predation. These projects were conducted across 26 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guam.
What we need are additional resources for this vital program. We can't afford to cut this program. Cutting funds would only hurt those we are trying to help the most in this bill, citizens of rural America. Make no mistake, this amendment isn't about a budget or an economic issue, this is about animal rights. This amendment is about which animals are to be protected and which aren't. The sponsors of the amendment want to protect the noxious beasts that are driving family farms out of business. I want to protect the animals that farmers, ranchers and shepherds are counting on to provide for their own families well being.
Vote ``no'' on this amendment and ``yes'' for rural America.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. JACKSON-LEE).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, although we need to treat our farmers well, we need to treat our animals humanely, so I rise to support the DeFazio-Bass amendment as a humane effort to deal with our wildlife.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment which curtails the funding for what was formerly known as the Animal Damage Control p rogram.
This amendment cuts $7 million in funding for the Department of Agriculture's inappropriately named ``Wildlife Services'' program. I say
[Page: H5768] GPO's PDF
Each year, this program indiscriminately kills 90,000 coyotes, foxes, bears and mountain lions. It is indiscriminate because there are few controls to ensure that the animals being slaughtered are tied to attacks on livestock. Oftentimes, young cubs are caught and killed, and on occasion, even a domesticated dog or cat will be mistakenly felled. This is simply not appropriate--and it should be stopped.
Wildlife Services is cruel because Wildlife Services still insists on using barbaric methods to handle these animals--including poisons, snares, leg-hold traps and even aerial hunting. Sometimes, these animals are simply clubbed to death. Harp Seals are not the only animals that need protection from this brutal practice. We can do better than this--humane animal control t echniques exist in our modern world. We can relocate animals that have caused problems.
How is it that we can build an internationally-sponsored space station or clone animals, but yet we cannot find a way to treat our animals humanely? Do we need to spray poison in the face of animals that can contaminate other animals, or even humans, it comes in contact with afterwards? Must we kill not only the offending animal, but also every innocent scavenger that happens upon its corpse? In this scenario, must we curtail the hunting of our nation's beloved national bird, the Bald Eagle and instead subject him to this brutal and inhumane hunting method.
This program has been ineffective, and roundly criticized for decades. It was fully reviewed by advisory committees under the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Carter Administrations--each of which suggested numerous reforms, but none have been adopted.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) similarly released a report in 1995 that found the program to be largely ineffective. Studies have shown the coyotes have adapted to our killing techniques much better than we have adapted towards more humane methods of predator c ontrol. Despite a 71% increase in funding for these programs between 1983 and 1993, coyotes have compensated for the culling of their species by simply having more pups. Surely, we have been out-foxed here!
In addition, unlike in the past the amendment will fund Wildlife Services at the level proposed in the President's budget for FY 2001 (about 28.7 million for operations). Simply cutting the excess $7 million subsidy provided in the Committee bill over and above what the Administration considers necessary to carry out Wildlife Service operations nationwide.
We are smarter than this. This House is smarter than this. As a result, I urge my colleagues to support this sensible and humane amendment being offered by Congressmen DEFAZIO and BASS.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
There is one issue and one issue only before the House: shall the taxpayers provide a special subsidy to Western ranchers. Approximately $7 million a year is spent on the wasteful, ineffective, indiscriminate killing of wildlife in the Western U.S. and, as we heard from my colleague from Oregon last night, it is not working. Maybe we should try something else.
After more than a half century, there are more coyotes, more dispersed. They do not understand coyotes' biology. Kill the alphas and the rest of them go disperse and breed. They kill nontarget species. Here is a golden eagle. Well, here are some predators right here. We can see these little guys have definitely been feasting on sheep. No, they have not been, but they were killed too.
This program should end. There is no effect on public safety, despite what we hear from others. Bird strikes at airports, rabbit are dangerous to humans, brown tree snakes, dusky geese, endangered species, all of those could continue to be controlled by a nearly $30 million-a-year budget for the animal damage control fo lks. Farmers and ranchers would be free to hire or themselves use any legal method of control fo r any threats to their flocks. Why send a Federal employee to take care of their private interests? I cannot call a Federal employee to take care of the possums, deer and raccoons who transgress on my property, probably from the nearby BLM. They will not come. But if I was a rancher, they would. Now, why is this exclusive subsidy made available?
Do not be cowed by the howls of protests from the privileged few who are enjoying this subsidy. Ignore the false sense of their red herring arguments and stop fleecing the taxpayers here today. Vote for this amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. PETERSON) to close debate.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Today I rise as chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus that strongly opposes this amendment. On behalf of myself and the other leaders of the caucus who try to speak for the sportsmen of this country, we hope that our colleagues will vote this amendment down.
As sportsmen we are concerned with reserving populations of wildlife for future generations, as well as preserving our right to hunt and fish. The hard reality is that this amendment would create unnecessary and increased wildlife losses.
Contrary to what my colleagues have been told, Wildlife Services reduces the overall amount of wildlife taken by selectively targeting only those animals that are causing damage. In Kansas where Wildlife Services does not conduct a program, the number of animals killed by others is dramatically higher, not less.
But more importantly, this amendment will not only target animals that are bothering ranchers, if part of the budget is eliminated that is being talked about, many areas will be left with no service on protection at all. They will simply eliminate the position because there will not be enough to do. This means that other Wildlife Services functions like airport safety and human protection will not be performed.
Also, areas like northern Minnesota will be left unprotected because species such as the timber wolf can only be effectively taken by professional trappers who know what they are doing. Here we have a species that was protected by the Federal Government, whose population has exploded to double what it was and double the original range, has moved out of the timber area into the farming country, and has caused us a huge amount of problems. If this amendment passes, there will be no way to help those farmers with these livestock losses. It is not feasible for them to control th ese animals themselves because they are very difficult to hunt or trap.
Maybe, if we release some of these wolves in Eugene, Oregon, or Minneapolis or Boston or San Francisco or New York City, we would have a different attitude on the part of some Members of this House. This is an irresponsible amendment that will do more harm than good. Please join the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus in opposing this amendment.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents