[Page: E1193]
---

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.

  END